1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) On December 8, 2012, the Plaintiff between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Busan District captain-gun, 701 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

1) The sales contract to purchase KRW 170,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) The instant sales contract is written only on the size of the section for exclusive use, and does not contain any content on the expansion of balcony.

B. 1) After the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant is able to use the instant apartment for the purpose of a warehouse and boiler room, approximately 15.6 square meters of the balcony in front of the instant apartment, and approximately 9.5 square meters of the rear balcony (the front and rear balcony shall be hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant balcony”).

(2) On December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment in its name and moved into the said apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 7, evidence 4-1 and evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 12-1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion (selectively) ① The defendant's construction of the ceiling and the window in the balcony in this case was known to be in violation of relevant laws and regulations, such as the Building Act, so that it can be used for the purpose of warehouse and boiler room, and the plaintiff deceivings the plaintiff as legitimate, and purchased the apartment in this case with the knowledge that the balcony which is to be equipped with the apartment in this case was lawful. The plaintiff purchased the apartment in this case with the knowledge that the above balcony would be legitimate. The plaintiff purchased the apartment in this case, where the above balcony is legitimate, the price of the apartment in this case's apartment in this case's case's price of KRW 171,50,000, the difference between the market price of the apartment in 171,600,000 and KRW 3,179,000,000 for the above removal and restoration costs of the balcony, and due to the defendant's above deceptive act, and thus, the defendant suffered mental damages of KRW 20,000.