1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the following facts, the court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, acknowledged the circumstances of the judgment, and agreed to construct the original part of the apartment building at the time of the sales contract in this case with various manufacturing companies, and there was no legal standard to distinguish the original part of the original part of the apartment building and the consolidated part of the apartment building at the time of the sales contract in this case, and there was no specification about the original part of the specifications as to the new construction of the apartment building in this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion, that it cannot be readily concluded that the "On-project floor board" mentioned in the above apartment apartment building at the sale Karo does not mean the product with a thickness of 2mm or more, as alleged by the plaintiff. In other words, the sectional owner of this case who was the buyer at the time of the sales contract in this case and the defendant agreed to construct it using the original part of the

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of apartment sales contract.

B. As to the second and third points

The court below acknowledged consolation money in consideration of all the circumstances, including the following: (a) while selling the apartment of this case in lots, the Defendant’s marking “raw-to-bedle board with the natural aesthetic beauty above water” on the apartment of this case constitutes false or exaggerated advertisements, and thus, (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge the amount of damages as to the property damage suffered by the above sectional owners; (c) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above sectional owners suffered mental distress due to false or exaggerated advertisements; (d) the difference between the cost of construction of the floor and the original ridge constructed by the Defendant, which is 1,234,686 square meters in a household with the section of exclusive ownership and 1,513,98 won in a household with the section of exclusive ownership and 1,513,98 square meters in a household with the section of exclusive ownership and 1,680,862 square meters in a 128.92 square meters in a 1,680,869 square meters in a way to the above households.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination of property damage and consolation money as above is just and acceptable. In so determining, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation method of property damage or determination of consolation money, which caused the tort of false or exaggerated

C. On the fourth ground for appeal

The court below limited the defendant's liability to 60% of the defect repair cost in consideration of the following: (a) the period of about six years from the date of the inspection of the use of the apartment of this case until the appraisal of the defect of this case was conducted; (b) the natural aging phenomenon may occur in the apartment of this case; (c) the parts caused by the error in construction and the parts caused by the natural aging phenomenon among the defects in the apartment of this case are practically difficult to accurately separate the parts caused by the defect of this case from the defect of this case; and (d) the part of the apartment of this case was converted to the sale after the lease of this case for five years

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the limitation of liability for damages, contrary to the grounds of appeal.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. The seller’s default liability or warranty liability in the apartment sale contract shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the following: (a) an apartment unit sold in lots shall have an apartment unit under a special agreement between the parties concerned; or (b) an apartment unit sold in lots fails to meet normal quality or character in transactions, such as housing construction standards under the Housing Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da9358, 9365, Aug. 21, 2008; 2007Da9139, Apr. 29, 2010); and (c) whether the apartment unit was defective shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the contract terms between the parties concerned; (d) whether the apartment unit was constructed as designed; and (e) whether it conforms to the standards prescribed under the housing-related statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

① In the meantime, the project approval drawing cannot be deemed to have been concluded between the project operator and the buyer on the basis of the project approval drawing, unless otherwise agreed, because it is merely the basic drawing that the project operator submits to the person authorized to approve the project plan in order to obtain the approval of the housing construction project plan. ② In the actual construction process, the modification of the project, such as substitution, increase or decrease construction between the items of construction work, takes into account the individual characteristics of construction works and the construction site conditions; ③ In such cases, the project operator shall obtain the approval of the project plan in accordance with the housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes; ④ in cases of minor changes, the project operator shall be subject to the procedure of notification to the person authorized to approve the project plan; ④ the construction inspection after the use inspection is conducted based on the final drawing reflecting the changes; ⑤ the construction inspection after the use inspection is conducted based on the construction completion drawing; ④ the construction completion drawing ordinarily provides for the change of the object; and, as the housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes are scheduled to modify, the purchaser of the apartment can not be deemed to have concluded the sale contract or the sale agreement separately based on the construction announcement.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in the case of multi-family housing, which takes place by pre-sale or post-sale construction as in the apartment of this case, the apartment unit is still being built at the time the sales contract was concluded or being constructed. It is expected that apartment units can be constructed in accordance with the design drawings (hereinafter “project approval drawings”) submitted by the seller at the time of obtaining approval of the housing construction project plan under the provisions of housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 18(2) of the sales contract concluded between the owner of this case and the defendant, where partial modifications are made in accordance with the approval and report of the project plan after the date of conclusion of the contract, the defendant shall notify the seller of the modification. However, as the defendant did not submit the modified documents within six months of the modification and notification of the modification of the construction plan to the above sectional owner, the part of the apartment unit can be seen as a defect that falls under the modification of the construction plan without the approval of the design drawings of this case (hereinafter “approval of the modification of the design drawings of this case”).

C. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the design modification part of this case was constructed in accordance with the design modification procedure in accordance with the housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and as to the design modification part of this case at the issue of this case, it was modified to the approved drawings at the time of the sales contract, and the model house produced therefrom seems to have been disclosed. In addition, unlike the design modification part of this case at the time of the sales contract, there is no evidence suggesting that the project undertaker advertised the buyer to execute the construction in accordance with the specific construction method as stated in the project approval drawings, or included the contents indicated in the project approval drawings individually in the sales contract through the provision of the purchase guide or the presentation of sample house. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a defect

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that the part of this case constitutes a defect which does not meet the quality or nature of the contract for sale in lots on the ground that it was modified, constructed or constructed differently from the design modification approval drawing of the project, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the defect liability criteria under Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds of appeal pointing this out

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the defect items of 12 paper 12 paper of the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)