2. B

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On November 12, 2004, the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E apartment on the ground of the land of the Seocho-gu and one parcel is an apartment complex with the total of 122 households, which was approved for use on November 12, 2004, and the defendant owned the above apartment G GH (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

B. On March 16, 2018, the Defendant leased the instant apartment to Nonparty I. However, on or around March 16, 2018, a water leakage phenomenon occurred around the lower floor of Jho-ho and K, and the toilet room and the toilet around the toilet. As a result of the detection of a water source, the Defendant replaced the instant apartment boiler, and the Defendant did not have a water leakage phenomenon in the instant apartment after the replacement of the said boiler, for about one year and six months.

C. On June 17, 2019, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiffs to sell the instant apartment at KRW 1.85 billion (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Plaintiffs on August 16, 2019. A licensed real estate agent who arranged the instant sales contract at the time of the instant sale and purchase directly visited the instant apartment two times with the Plaintiffs to check the status of the apartment, but did not have any water leakage phenomenon. At the time of the sale and purchase, it was confirmed that there was no defect in facilities or inconvenience in residence by the lessee I residing therein.

D. However, around October 24, 2019, the water leakage from the instant apartment led to the occurrence of water leakage around Jho Lake toilet, the lower floor. As a result of the Plaintiffs’ request for detection and repair work, which is a water source to the pipe, heating and cooling construction (business name L), the diagnosis that the cause of waterproof damage caused by the deterioration of the toilet in the instant apartment was caused by Naom, performed repair work, such as the removal of the wall side of the toilet in the instant apartment, and the removal of the wall side of the toilet in the instant apartment depending on Naom, and the said repair work should be conducted for a period of two months after the repair work.

E. On December 20, 2019, the apartment of the instant case occurred around Jho-gu toilets, drums, and the clothes behind the kitchen, which are the lower floor of the apartment of the instant case. As a result of requesting detection of water leakage sources to a water leakage detection company (business name M), the apartment of the instant case was diagnosed as a phenomenon where water leakage was generated in the straw in the straw in the heating pipe of the heating pipe of the instant apartment of the instant case, and the water leakage was found to have occurred in the water supply room and the floor oil of the public bath room.

F. Around January 16, 2020, the lessee, after the passage of the board of directors, discovered water sources once again, and as a result, removed the entire bathing room of the instant apartment from the entire site (the bathing room, water tank, water tank, water tank, water tank, water tank change, and water tank installed by the Defendant individually) and removed it to the end of the existing outer wall, and then implemented a water leakage repair work on the floor of the bathing room and the wall side of the outer wall, re-rupture and re-ruptures on the outer wall, and implemented a large water leakage repair work and the next floor Jho Lake damage restoration work. Since the repair work, there has been no water leakage phenomenon up to now.

G. After the occurrence of water leakage on October 24, 2019, the expenses paid by the Plaintiffs for detecting the water source of the instant apartment, repairing works, and performing restoration works against the lower floors are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

H. After the occurrence of water leakage on October 24, 2019, the Plaintiffs confirmed to the management office of the apartment complex of this case, and the management office confirmed that the water leakage occurred in other apartment units of this case, but that there was no less water leakage as the water leakage phenomenon of the apartment complex of this case.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition】 The evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The defendant, as the seller of the apartment in this case, bears the warranty liability under Articles 580 and 575 of the Civil Act. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the total of 16,038,123 won of the cost of repairing defects, which is the damage incurred to the plaintiffs due to the leakage of the apartment in this case, each of 8,019,061 won according to their share ratio, and the delay damages therefrom

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

In the event that the object of a sale lacks objective performance expected in terms of transaction norms, or the parties lack the nature scheduled or guaranteed, the seller bears the warranty liability for the buyer due to the defect. The existence of such defect should be determined as of the time of establishment of the sales contract. However, if the sales contract and the time of completion are far away, it should be determined as at the time of completion of performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da18506, Jan. 18, 2000).

B. Determination

However, even if all of the facts acknowledged earlier and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are combined, it is difficult to find that there was a defect in lack of objective nature and performance expected in the instant apartment in light of the transaction norms at the time of establishment of the instant sales contract or at the time of ownership change, solely on the sole basis of the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the facts as seen earlier, evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, ① the apartment complex of this case was a building approved for use on or around November 2004, which was 14 years or more at the time of the instant sales contract, and water leakage was generated in other apartment complexes of the instant apartment complex due to the deterioration of the building; ② the water leakage arising from the interior cause of the building, such as the apartment complex, is a phenomenon that, due to its nature, can only occur if there is a realized cause for water leakage in the inside pipes or bathing rooms of the building; ③ the apartment complex of this case was a water leakage arising from the internal cause around March 2018, but it was difficult to find that there was a change in water leakage from the date of the instant sales contract to October 24, 2019, as well as from the time of the replacement of boiler which was revealed as a water leakage as well as from the time of the instant sales contract to the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and there was no change in water leakage by 20 months or less.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.