1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, C, and D respectively KRW 225,00,000 for each of them and the period from August 1, 2010 to August 1, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s building A (GG 149 households, H 148 households, I Dong 148 households, 148 households, hereinafter “instant officetel”).

(2) Defendant B, C, and D are project undertakers who jointly constructed and sold G and H Dongs among the instant officetels under the trade name of “J” and Defendant E Co., Ltd. (E collectively referred to as “E” from “F” to “E”; hereinafter collectively referred to as “E”) is a project proprietor who constructed and sold the instant officetels, and the instant officetel obtained approval for use on December 1, 2004.

3) K Co., Ltd. contracted a new construction of the instant officetel with the Defendants. B. Some of the sectional owners of the instant officetel demanding the transfer of assignment of claims and the repair of defects transferred damage claims in lieu of the repair of defects to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendants thereof. The Plaintiff continuously demanded repair of defects after the approval for use of the instant officetel, but the K Co., Ltd failed to perform this. (C) On September 29, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking damages in lieu of the repair of the instant officetel as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2006Ga16827.

2) On November 6, 2009, the court of the first instance rendered a ruling that “Defendant B, C, and D shall pay each of the damages for delay from September 3, 2009 to the Plaintiff 184,126,156 won and the damages for delay from September 3, 2009 to the Plaintiff,” and the Defendants appealed appealed against the above ruling (Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na57403). The appellate court rendered an appeal on May 13, 2010 to the effect that “Defendant B, C, and D shall pay each of the damages for delay from September 3, 2009 to the Plaintiff” (Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na57403).