[Additional Part] After the second 13th of the judgment of the court of first instance, "4. The front and rear of the building, and the part of the walls shall be the buyer's repair life cycle."

After the second instance judgment of the first instance, the second instance judgment added "(based for recognition) the fact that there is no dispute, and the purport of Gap's entries or videos, and the whole pleadings."

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant sales contract, did not perform its repair obligation to repair the remainder of the instant building to the Plaintiff, despite the obligation to repair the remainder of the building in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant sales contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is deemed to have fulfilled its repair obligation under Article 6 of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant provisions”).

As the instant sales contract was rescinded pursuant to the contract, the Defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 8,00,000 to the Plaintiff due to the cancellation of the instant sales contract, and pay KRW 8,000,000 to the Plaintiff for damages due to nonperformance. 2) The circumstances revealed prior to the determination, namely, (i) the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the knowledge of the fact that the Plaintiff was entitled to ownership on the outer wall behind the instant building at the time of the instant sales contract; (ii) the details of the instant sales contract are stipulated as the sales contract under the current facilities; (iii) the Defendant’s acceptance of the part of the wall behind the instant building while the Defendant did not specify the period; and (iv) the use of the proceeds of the instant building was impossible or seriously restricted due to the leakage of the wall after the instant building; and (v) the instant sales contract is not concluded.