1. The plaintiff's appeal, the defendant's Ho-ri, the defendant's Ho-ri, the defendant's Ho-ri, the defendant Ho-ri, and the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Of the table No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance court, “972,468,422” in the column No. 2 of the "Amount guaranteed for performance" in the table No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance is “972,468,420”. The sum of “4,862,342,102” in the same table is “4,862,342,100” and the first determination of the table No. 8-9 of the judgment of the first instance court is “4,862,342,100”. The difference between the two specifications is not sufficient to include the difference between the two specifications, such as water tank and its accessory floor waterproof construction work (public use 11-10), water tank and its accessory floor waterproof construction work (exclusive use 11-2-1), and it is naturally impossible for the Defendants to claim the difference between the two specifications and the two specifications, and it is still impossible to include the difference between the two specifications in the design and waterproof construction work thickness.

2) Whether it is a defect (A) or not (1) the date of project approval for the apartment of this case is May 18, 2004. The date of commencement report is February 6, 2006, and the date of use approval is September 19, 2008.