All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant Intervenor, and the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court did not accept the Plaintiff’s assertion of defects on the grounds of lack of liquid waterproof thickness, and, on the other hand, calculated the defect repair cost based on the difference between the construction cost and the construction cost in relation to the defects of “the roof, floor, drilling, and alteration

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the defects of buildings and the importance of defects, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the court below held that the plaintiff's claim does not conflict with the res judicata of the mediation protocol established in the relevant case, while the plaintiff's claim does not conflict with the res judicata of the mediation protocol, on the ground that the apartment building of this case was completed and the registration of sectional ownership has been completed, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's warranty right against the defendant was extinguished or transferred to the present sectional owners, and that the plaintiff can still claim damages

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the protocol of mediation and the requirements for the establishment of liability for nonperformance, etc., which affected the remaining judgment.

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court held that the Defendant’s compliance with the Defendant’s construction obligation ought to be determined on the basis of the approval of project plans.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the criteria for determining defects, etc., which affected the remaining judgment.

C. The lower court’s ground of appeal Nos. 4 and 5 is stated in its reasoning.