1. Of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim against Defendant SP Construction Co., Ltd., KRW 1,167,309,603 and its objection.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a party to the dispute 1) The plaintiff is an A apartment in his own city C and D (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case").

(2) Defendant B apartment reconstruction and rearrangement project association (hereinafter “Defendant association”) is a project proprietor of the instant apartment construction project, who constructed and sold the instant apartment, and Defendant BS Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant AS Construction”) is a contractor of the instant apartment construction project. Defendant BS Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant AS Construction”) is a contractor of the instant apartment construction project, and Defendant BS Construction Mutual Aid Association guaranteed Defendant AS Construction’s duty to repair the defects of the instant apartment.

B. From November 20, 2009 to November 19, 2010 to November 20, 201, 3,578,813,709 to November 20, 201 to November 19, 201, 3,578,813,709 to November 3, 201 to November 19, 201, 3,309 to November 19, 201 to November 19, 201 to 3,368, 20, 5654 to guarantee the warranty liability (the warranty liability period) of Defendant EM and the warranty liability of Defendant EM on November 20 to 20 to 368, 20, 5654 to 4, 2009 to 10,684, 110, 282, 110, 208, 198, 2018.

(2) On November 23, 2009, the Defendant Union had undergone a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment, and around that time, each of the relevant households of the instant apartment was delivered to the sectional owners, and thereafter, as the Plaintiff, which is an autonomous management body of the instant apartment, was constituted, the guarantee creditor of the instant guarantee contract was changed to the Plaintiff.

C. The defect occurrence and defect repair expenses incurred in the instant apartment construction were not to be executed in the construction of the instant apartment, or the construction was to be executed by changing the design drawings differently from the design drawings.

Accordingly, from April 8, 2010, the plaintiff is the defendant at the request of the tenant and the sectional owner of the apartment of this case.