3. C.

4. D;

Plaintiff 2 through 4’s attorney Park Jong-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

1. Stock company E;

2. Company G:

3. Stock company 1.

[Defendant-Appellant] Hong Jaeon Law Firm

Attorney T-type

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

The lower court recognized that Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant E”), a seller of each of the parts owned by the Plaintiffs, as a defect arising from the error in construction. In so doing, the lower court’s judgment included the purport of rejecting the Defendants’ assertion that Defendant E does not bear any warranty liability against the Plaintiffs on the ground that the sales price was reduced due to the defect in this part at the time of each sales contract.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiff B, C, and D, the lower court acknowledged that the change of the main household of each part of exclusive ownership that Plaintiff B, C, and D purchased as a defect caused by the construction error, and calculated each of the defect repair costs of Plaintiff B, C, and D in accordance with the ratio of the respective areas of exclusive ownership that were purchased by Plaintiff B, C, and D among the total areas of exclusive ownership of the instant apartment ownership on the premise that the sum of the cost of defect repair related to the change of the main household due to the appraisal by the appraiser is related to the entire areas of exclusive ownership of the instant apartment ownership.

However, according to the records, the above KRW 208,807,934 is not the cost of repairing the defects related to the entire section for exclusive use of multi-family housing of this case, but it is limited to the cost of repairing the defects related to each section for exclusive use owned by the above plaintiffs (see, e.g., inquiries by the appraiser S on Oct. 16, 2017);

As above, the court below erred in calculating damages in lieu of defect repair related to the change of the main household that the Defendants should pay to the above plaintiffs. In so doing, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules. The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal pointing this out are with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the parts against Plaintiff B, C, and D of the lower judgment, the part concerning damages due to the change of main household color is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Defendants’ appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Chief Justice Kim Jong-il

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Gin-soo