1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount corresponding to the "amount of money" stated in the separate sheet for calculating the amount of damages and the above amount.

1. The section that is part of the exclusive ownership that serves as a source of recognition;

1. A fourth-story reinforced concrete building 65.74 square meters;

5. Two stories E, No. 202, reinforced concrete structure 78.26§³;

2. B, third floor, reinforced concrete building No. 301, 78.26 square meters;

6. F4th floor building of reinforced concrete No. 401, 74.78 square meters;

3. C third floor, reinforced concrete building No. 302, 78.26 square meters;

7. G first floor of reinforced concrete building 102 square meters, 78.26 square meters;

4. A reinforced concrete building No. 201, No. 201, 78.26 square meters;

8. H No. 101 square meters of reinforced concrete tanks 78.26 square meters;

A. The Plaintiffs are the following persons who own multi-unit housing of the fourth floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul High reinforced concrete Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ buildings”) which is an aggregate building in 197. The Defendant purchased the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government KS 403m2 adjoining the Plaintiffs’ buildings in February 2014. Since April of the same year, the Plaintiffs were those who removed the existing church buildings on the said land and newly built new buildings (hereinafter “the instant removal and new construction”).

B. The construction of this case caused defects such as new ruptures or expansion of ruptures already existed in the building of this case, and the degree of contribution to the construction of this case to the above defects is as stated in the column of “rupture” in the attached table of calculation of the repair cost (in this regard, according to the appraiser L’s appraisal result, the construction of this case contributed to the parking lot of the plaintiffs, 100%. However, even based on the above appraisal result, there is a mixture of ruptures of floor level and ruptures with the progress of using the part that the defendant performed the repair, and thus, the contribution to the above defects of the construction of this case is limited to 90%, and (2) due to the leakage of the part on the rooftop part of the plaintiffs’ building.