1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. In the first instance court, the plaintiff filed a claim for property damage (i) and mental claim (ii) and property mental claim (iii) during the defect repair period for the defendant's delay of defect repair, and the first instance court rejected the part of the claim (i), (iii) and (2).

Since only the defendant filed an appeal, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part of the claim.

2. Determination

A. It is reasonable to view that the mental suffering of a contractor caused by a defect in a newly built building generally determined on the cause of the claim is recovered from the compensation for the defect caused in lieu of the defect repair or the compensation for the defect. If the contractor suffered an irrecoverable mental suffering solely due to the repair of the defect or the compensation for the damage, this is a special reason and the contractor has known or could have known such a circumstance, and the compensation for the mental suffering can be recognized only if the contractor knew or could have known it

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da12798 delivered on June 11, 1996. In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s relocation of Nos. 3 through 6, A’s No. 4-1, 2, and A’s No. 5-10 as to the instant case, based on the following: (a) the entirety purport of the pleadings is as follows: (b) the Plaintiff’s relocation of No. 901 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) from the Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 208, and 901 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) constructed by the Defendant around July 2012; (c) around December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the damages to the Plaintiff by causing any defect in the inner apartment site, the drama, and the toilet phenomenon (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).