1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The argument that the plaintiff and the defendant appealed respectively by the court of first instance is not different from the argument in the court of first instance except for the part examined in paragraph 2 below. The fact-finding and decision in the court of first instance are reasonable even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the testimony of witness F are added to the evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as follows, except where the plaintiff and the defendant added additional arguments and the judgment on them to this court, and changed some contents, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The second 9th 9 to 10th 10th m of the judgment of the first instance in the part to be added and modified, "At that time, the defendant notified the plaintiff that he had ruptures in the front 8th floor management room, and that he had a little amount of water on the rooftop, fourth st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st st

O The testimony of a witness F shall be added to the second 11 written judgment of the court of first instance (based on recognition).

O The second part of the second part of the judgment of the first instance, “the part notified as above by the plaintiff,” shall be changed to “the part confirmed by the defendant or confirmed by the plaintiff.”

O The third half to fourth half of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended as follows:

"2. As to this, the Defendant knew or could have known the defects of the instant building at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and thus, cannot be liable for warranty against the Defendant pursuant to the proviso of Article 580(1) of the Civil Act, and even if the Plaintiff could not have known of the ground subsidence, the Plaintiff did not object to the crack and leakage of the instant building, which is irrelevant to ground subsidence.