1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases:

"No. 10 of the 4th judgment of the first instance court" means the court of first instance and the court of first instance, "No. 7 of the 16th judgment" means the court of first instance and the court of first instance, "No. 7 of the 16th judgment" means the court of first instance and the court of first instance.

In the last 5th of the judgment of the first instance, "as recognized," the existence of the defect is unknown at the time of the occurrence of the defect which is not a door to the construction, or even if there are some inconvenience in the aesthetic function, it is not many cases where the defect is left alone before the existence of the defect is emphasized in full scale, and a large number of the defect in the plaintiff's demand for remuneration (such as the phenomenon of the reduction of stairs and water leakage, underground water leakage, household balcony and each room) seems to be related to the defect in the above attached Table, the place and cause of occurrence."

No. 12 of the judgment of the first instance court, "the result of the request for the supplementation of expert evidence" in the 18th judgment shall be applied to "the result of the request for the supplementation of expert evidence, the fact-finding to the expert witness of the court of the first instance, and

After the 14th judgment of the first instance court (exclusive 11-6) and the 11-8th [public 11-8] column, “In addition to the fact-finding findings that there is a defect in the reverse support solely by the descriptions of the evidence of subparagraphs B or B 8-12, it is insufficient to find out that there is a defect in the reverse support.”

The lower table shall be added to the lower table of the 18th judgment.

[Attachment 12-3] It is unreasonable that an appraiser omitted from the notification function of the entry and departure of the home-to-house from the home-to-house for the first 12,735,890 won for the repair of defects, which has increased to 13,087,225 won without a specific explanation.

The estimated amount of the re-establishment cost of the program of the non-party Mine S&C (ju) who performed the instant apartment communications construction shall be 3,00,000 won (excluding value-added tax).