All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Of the grounds of appeal No. 1, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that it is difficult to view that the design modification on the exclusive use area, etc. of the instant apartment due to the Defendant’s reasons attributable to the Plaintiff

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of Plaintiff’s service, the independence of legal personality and the principle of self-responsibility, and the formulation of project implementation plans under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas

B. As to the allegation related to the claim for damages arising from delay in the first ground of appeal and the second ground of appeal, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not bear liability for damages arising from delay in the performance on the ground that the Plaintiff’s obligation to compensate for damages, such as defects, against the Defendant and the Defendant’s obligation to register ownership transfer against the Plaintiff with respect to eight households among the instant apartment buildings, are in simultaneous performance relationship, as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the liability for delay, simultaneous performance defense, and the scope of exemption from delay liability.

C. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, this part of the ground of appeal is premised on the Defendant’s assumption that the Defendant is liable for the delay of the registration of ownership transfer to eight households among the apartment buildings of this case.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant stated against the Plaintiff.