1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim added by this court, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reasons for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the warranty liability and warranty period of the No. 4 and No. 5 in the 3 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance are modified as follows; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the Plaintiff and the Defendants consider additional or

The title of the contract, the warranty period of the defect liability period of the instant apartment construction (such as site construction works) and the warranty period of 4 years from May 11, 2007 to May 10, 2009 to May 5, 2009 to May 11, 2007 to May 2, 2008. The Plaintiff’s additional determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The 51 household, among the 650 unit buyers of the instant apartment, had already concluded a sales contract with the Defendant company prior to May 17, 2007, which was the date of the use inspection of the instant apartment.

The above 51 household should be deemed to have concluded a sales contract based on the starting drawings rather than the completion drawings.

Thus, the Defendant Company constructed the modified construction items different from the starting drawings and received a pre-use inspection in accordance with the modified completed drawings.

However, the above 51 households cannot be said to have fulfilled their obligations under the contract for sale in lots.

Ultimately, in the case of the modified construction item of this case, the above 51 household units should be deemed to have failed to perform the sales contract properly, and the defect repair amount is 27,635,320 won based on the above 51 household units.

(2) The apartment of this case has defects in the 1, 2, and 3-years stated in the attached Table of Defects List, which occurred within the warranty period.

Although the establishment of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case was delayed and the request for defect repair was not made, the plaintiff or the sectional owner did not waive the above claim for defect repair or damage claim.

Therefore, the defendant company and the defendant union are equivalent to the cost of defect repair.