1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The Defendant, a public rental apartment, constructed Kimpo-si B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and obtained approval for use on May 15, 2009.

On May 23, 2009, the Plaintiff leased 302 Dong 1103 of the instant apartment from the Defendant and resided therein.

On December 28, 2011, ownership was acquired after purchasing.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff and defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that there was a defect, such as the stma and sloping in a bath room of 302, 1103, the apartment of this case. Thus, the defendant, who is the subject of the apartment sale business of this case, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a solatium of 584,258 won as damages in lieu of the defect repair, a solatium of 1,00,000 won due to mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to the defect repair, and damages for delay.

(1) The Plaintiff transferred the instant apartment to the council of occupants' representatives to the Suwon District Court case No. 2015 Gohap61340 on the right to claim damages against the defect outside the bathing room of 302, 1103, the apartment of this case, and the Plaintiff did not claim in this case).

According to the relevant provisions, including the Housing Act, the Defendant’s assertion 1) may claim damages in lieu of the defect repair only for the defect that occurred during the prescribed warranty period. The defect alleged by the Plaintiff is one year’s warranty liability period under the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act. The Plaintiff discovered the above defect around May 7, 2014, when five years have elapsed from May 23, 2009, delivered the instant apartment house 302 Dong 1103, and around May 23, 2009. Thus, it is apparent that this is a defect that occurred after one year, and therefore, the Defendant does not have the liability to repair the defect. 2) Even if the Defendant is recognized as a substitute for the defect repair, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff suffered mental suffering due to the defect, and the Defendant knew or known the Plaintiff’s mental suffering.