1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association expanded in the trial.

1. Scope of appeal filed by the appellant;

A. The Plaintiff subsequently decided to modify the purport of the claim according to the result of appraisal, and claimed for the payment of KRW 101,000,000 for damages against the development of the defendant Pauri on the ground that the damages claim in lieu of defect repair was acquired from the sectional owners of the apartment in this case, and also claimed for the payment of KRW 101,00,000 for the repair liability contract against the defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association.

B. According to the appraiser C’s appraisal, the Plaintiff’s amendment of the purport of the claim, and the failure to perform the 29 short heat construction exclusively for the list of defects in the section for exclusive use (hereinafter “instant defect”) was deemed the defect prior to the pre-use inspection, and the Plaintiff did not claim the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association for the defect repair cost KRW 117,349,956

C. However, the appraiser followed the inquiry reply to the effect that "as a result of the investigation into the state of the construction of a short heat structure after the removal of a wall, the heat is constructed in accordance with the design drawings, but it is judged that the space between the heat heats is not connected with the test doping and the sprinking agents, etc., and the construction failure (non-performing construction) was determined, and that the heat performance decline and fung in the wall caused by the sprinking of the wall was determined after the pre-use inspection."

The court of the first instance affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that determined that “the instant defect was the second-year defect and the total of KRW 383,416,469,00 for the repair cost for the defect that occurred after the inspection, but the Plaintiff’s claim (amounting to KRW 266,453,352) against the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association was excluded from the above amount from the annual defect repair cost for the second-year defect repair on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim (amounting to KRW 266,453,352) was not included in the repair cost for the instant defect.” Then, the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association sentenced the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 19,549,657 for each of the annual defect repair costs multiplied by 75% for the

2.3.