2. 원고의 주장 피고는 원고 등에게 별지 지체상금 계산표 ‘⑥ 납입총액’란 기재 각 해당 계약금, 중도금 및 발코니 비용에 대하여 입주가 지연된 526일 내지 161일 동안 이 사건 분양계약 제8조 (2)에서 정한 연체요율을 곱하여 산정한 지체상금에서, 같은 표 ‘⑨ 잔금납부시 공제한 지체상금 및 입주지연이자’란 기재 각 해당 금액을 공제한 잔액인 같은 표 ‘⑦ 청구금액’란 기재 각 해당 금액과 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다.

The reasons are as follows. A.

The approval for temporary use of the instant apartment was void that the Defendant was obligated to allow the buyers who concluded the sales contract in 2012 to move into the instant apartment by August 31, 2014, and by August 31, 2015 to the buyers who concluded the sales contract in 2014.

Nevertheless, in January 8, 2016, the Defendant obtained a provisional use approval for the above apartment on the same day, and notified the Plaintiff, etc. that it is possible to move into the said apartment from January 9, 2016, and around this time, the above apartment was not completed to the extent that it is possible to move into the apartment. Therefore, the provisional use approval is null and void as serious and apparent defects exist.

Therefore, at the time of January 9, 2016, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have provided the Plaintiff, etc. with performance so that it can move into the instant apartment.

B. On February 8, 2016, even if the above approval for provisional use is valid, the Defendant provided implementation on February 8, 2016, for the Plaintiff, etc. to move into the instant apartment after the lapse of one month from January 8, 2016, which notified the Defendant that the approval for provisional use would be possible, since the Defendant was obligated to notify one month prior to the scheduled date of move into the instant apartment in accordance with the instant sales contract.

C. Article 8 (4) proviso and Article 8 (4) of the instant sales contract.