1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The appraiser’s appraisal result shall be respected unless there exist significant errors, such as the appraisal method, etc., contrary to the empirical rule or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da67602, 67602, 67619, Jul. 9, 2009). In addition, even where a part of the appraiser’s appraisal result is found, the court does not dismiss the entire appraisal result, unless the appraisal result is contradictory to each other or very unclear as a whole, and it does not dismiss only the corresponding part, and the remainder of the appraisal result may be adopted and used as evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84608, 84615, 84615, 84622, 84639, Jan. 12, 2012).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, it is just to accept the appraisal result of the appraiser of the court below and determine the warranty liability based on it, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The seller’s default liability or warranty liability in the apartment sale contract is acknowledged in a case where an apartment unit sold in lots is held under a special agreement between the parties concerned, or it does not have good quality or character in trade, such as housing construction standards under the Housing Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da9358, 9365, Aug. 21, 2008; 2007Da9139, Apr. 29, 2010). Whether the defects are defective should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, including the contract contents between the parties concerned, whether the apartment unit was constructed as designed, and whether it conforms to the criteria prescribed under the housing-related statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da16851, Dec. 9, 2010).

① The project approval drawing is merely a basic drawing submitted by the project operator to the person authorized to approve the project plan for the purpose of obtaining approval for the housing construction project, and it is difficult to view that the sales contract was concluded between the project operator and the buyer on the basis of the project approval drawing, unless there is a separate agreement, as the project operator and the buyer do not externally disclose the project approval drawing. ② The construction process frequently takes into account the individual characteristics of construction works or construction site conditions; ③ In such cases, the project operator must obtain approval for the change of the project plan from the person authorized to approve the project plan in accordance with housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes; ④ in cases of minor changes, the project operator must obtain approval for the change of the project plan in accordance with housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes; ④ in such cases, the use inspection is conducted based on the final drawing reflecting the changes; ⑤ the defect inspection after the use inspection is conducted based on the construction completion drawing; ② The apartment can not be viewed as a sale contract drawing or a sale contract announcement separately from the construction approval drawing, based on the premise that the apartment can not be seen as a sale contract agreement.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in the case of multi-family housing, which is sold by pre-sale or pre-sale construction as shown in the apartment of this case, as the apartment of this case, the buyer does not have a way to directly verify the apartment of this case since the apartment of this case has yet to be commenced or is under construction at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, and it is inevitable to expect the buyer to construct the apartment in accordance with the drawings (basic design drawings) submitted by the buyer with approval of the project in accordance with the provisions of the housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes and to conclude the sales contract at the time of the report of the commencement of the construction, and considering the fact that the housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes allow such a sale method, but strictly provides the procedure and its submission of the books accordingly, the court below determined that the seller is liable to construct the apartment in accordance with the project approval drawings and the construction plan of this case, and otherwise, the modified part of the constructed part shall be deemed to have failed to meet the quality or quality improvement in the construction plan of this case, and thus, the warranty warranty clause of this case shall be determined differently.

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

According to the records, the design modification part of this case was constructed as the completion drawing which had gone through the design modification procedure in accordance with the housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes, and as to the part of plastic windows which became the issues in this case, the modification was made as a plastic hold in the main finishing materials in the sale guide document produced at the time of the announcement of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of sale. According to the contents of major finishing facilities in the sale guide document produced at the time, the original materials are written as plastics, and the model house manufactured thereby was disclosed. Furthermore, even if examining the record, there is no evidence to conclude that the project proprietor, unlike the design modification part of this case at the time of the sale contract, was included in the sales contract as to the contents of the sales contract as stated in the project approval drawing, by advertising the buyer by way of construction, furnishing of the

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the part of this case constitutes a defect which does not meet the quality or nature of the contract for sale in question on the ground that the design modification project approval drawing or the construction work was modified, executed or executed differently from the project approval drawing or the construction work drawings, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defect criteria in the defect warranty liability under Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant as to the claim for damages as to the "matters of application for additional appraisal (e.g., quality, etc. caused by design alteration)" on the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below, "the construction content table by item of defects and the cost of repairing defects" on the 3rd party in the attached Table 1 of the judgment below. This part of the case is reversed, and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)