Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Sejong (LLC)

Attorney Yoon Jae-ap et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

All appeals by the defendants shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

1) In a case where a lawsuit is filed by clarifying the purport that a judgment is sought only for a part of one claim, the interruption of extinctive prescription by an action shall take effect only for that part, and the remainder shall not arise (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Da1557, Feb. 25, 1975).

However, in a case where the purport that the amount of a claim shall be extended according to the progress of the lawsuit, while claiming only a part of the claims which are the subject matter of the claim in the complaint, is indicated, and the amount of the claim is actually expanded until the lawsuit in question is completed, the interruption of prescription by a judicial claim as to the whole of the claim takes effect from the time of the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da43695, Apr. 10, 192). However, even if the complaint stated that the amount of the claim should be extended in accordance with the progress of the lawsuit while claiming only a part of the claims which are the subject matter of the claim in the complaint, if the specific part of the claim is clearly excluded from the claims, the interruption

2) The lower court: (a) filed the instant lawsuit with the purport that the Plaintiff claims part of the amount of damages arising from the defect of the instant apartment on the premise of expanding the claim amount through subsequent appraisal, etc.; (b) however, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to exclude all the amount equivalent to value-added tax from the claims while submitting an application for alteration of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of November 12, 2014; and (c) presented his/her intent to exclude all the amount of damages in each item, including value-added tax, based on the outcome of appraisal by the time of filing the application for alteration of the claim and the cause of the claim as of October 23, 2015; and (d) expressed his/her intention to exclude the amount equivalent to value-added tax from the amount of value-added tax claim as well as the amount equivalent to the value-added tax claim from the damages claim as of February 5, 2016; and (e) determined that the Plaintiff’s claim was retroactively 14/16th of the statutory period of claim.

3) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interruption of extinctive prescription of value-added tax amount, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court did not accept the allegation of defects caused by the alteration of liquid waterproof construction and the allegation of defects caused by the failure to install the artificial intelligence natural ventilation system, on the basis of the cost of replacing a door even in relation to the defect.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of the scope of defects of fire doors, the cost of repairing defects, the concept of defects related to liquid waterproof, the interpretation of intent to waive claims, etc. and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment,

2. The defendants' objections are judged to be lawful.

The incidental appeal that is to be filed after the right to appeal is extinguished shall be filed within the period for submission of the appellant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da52657, Dec. 10, 2002).

According to the records, the lower court’s incidental appeal by the Defendants is unlawful, since November 13, 2018, which was served on the appellant by the notice of receipt of the records of the appeal to the Plaintiff, was filed on January 25, 2019, the 20th day of the submission period of the appellate brief, from November 13, 2018.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ansan-chul

Justices Noh Jeong-hee