1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Among the contents established in the decision of recommending the settlement of this case as to the existence of the obligation to repair defects, it includes the phrase “the Defendant shall complete the inspection and repair of the defects in the construction of each apartment of this case by December 31, 2013.”

As above, the Defendants are obligated to repair defects in the construction of each apartment of this case against the Plaintiff as the counter party to the decision on the recommendation for settlement of this case, and it is irrelevant to who is the buyer or owner of each apartment of this case.

Therefore, even if each apartment of this case was sold in the name of C or D as seen earlier, the Defendants are obligated to repair the defects in the construction of each apartment of this case in relation to the Plaintiff according to the decision of recommending settlement of this case.

B. 1) The Plaintiff is entitled to seek compensation for the amount equivalent to the repair cost necessary for the repair of defects against the Defendants who did not perform the obligation of repairing defects pursuant to the decision of recommending the settlement of this case. According to the appraiser H’s appraisal results and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may find out the fact that the amount equivalent to KRW 3,617,98 is required for the construction cost necessary for the repair of defects existing in each apartment of this case, such as the leakage of the part in the inner door mold (the Defendant shall be excluded from the amount of damages on the ground of the Supreme Court Decision 2004Da39511 Decided April 28, 2006). However, the above judgment of the court below stated that the amount equivalent to the value-added tax required for the repair of defects should be excluded from the amount of damages, but when the contractor is a business operator who is the taxpayer under the Value-Added Tax Act and is used for his own business.