beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed as stated in Paragraph 2 of this case. The defendant's assertion in the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following decision as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph 3 of this case. Thus, it is acceptable
2. The changed part
A. 1) The party's assertion on the cause of claim 1) The plaintiff selects the execution of the sale to supply the housing after the execution of the instant apartment construction as a method of the performance of the guaranteed obligation, and supplied the apartment of this case to the buyer under his name. As such, the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings") on the pre-use inspection defects
The plaintiff asserts that the warranty liability of the seller under Article 9 shall be borne by the seller (the plaintiff asserts that the scope of the defect that the defendant bears as the seller is limited to the defect prior to the inspection of the use.
A) On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the defect in the apartment of this case is the guarantor under the sales guarantee contract of this case or each of the defect repair contracts of this case, and that it cannot be seen as the buyer’s position under the warranty liability of Article 9 of the Aggregate Buildings Act (the Plaintiff bears certain responsibilities for the defect prior to the inspection of the use on the apartment of this case).
Even if it is a liability under the sales guarantee contract of this case, it is not a legal liability under Article 9 of the Aggregate Buildings Act.
2) In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged and the purport of the entire pleadings.