1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant at KRW 740,000,000 (the contract amount of KRW 50,000,000 on a contractual basis, the remainder of KRW 690,000,000 on July 13, 2012) land and its ground (hereinafter “instant housing”).

B. The phrase “the defect repair period of a building shall be two years from the remainder date” in the column of the special terms and conditions of the sales contract prepared by the original Defendant upon entering into the said sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion caused defects, such as water leakage, in the ceiling of the instant house purchased from the Defendant, and subsequently accepted it on July 10, 2015 (i.e., KRW 3,980,000 in total (i., KRW 3,500,000 in ceiling and KRW 480,000 in the wall distribution cost). As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above repair cost pursuant to the warranty liability under Article 580 of the Civil Act.

B. The Defendant did not have any defect, such as water leakage, etc., in the instant house, and even if the defect occurred, the defect repair period under the sales contract has expired, and thus, the Defendant is not liable.

3. 판단 기초사실에서 인정한 바와 같이 원고와 피고는 매매계약의 특약으로 하자담보책임기간을 원고가 피고에게 잔금을 지급한 날로부터 2년으로 제한하기로 약정하였는데, 갑 제2호증, 갑 제3호증의 1, 2의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, D은 2015. 6. 13. 원고에게 ‘이 사건 주택 302호의 천장에서 2014. 4. 1.부터 비가 샜다’는 취지의 사실확인서(갑 제2호증)를 작성해 준 사실, 원고는 2015. 7. 10. E과 대금 3,500,000원으로 정하여 지붕방수 공사계약을 체결하였고, E에게 공사대금 중 3,150,000원 나머지 350,000원은 하자보증금으로 정하여 2개월 후에 지급하기로...