Of the part against Plaintiff B, C, and D of the lower judgment, the part on compensation for damages caused by the change of main household is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, the lower court recognized the change in the main household color of each part of exclusive ownership owned by the Plaintiffs as a defect caused by the error in construction by Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the reduction of the sale price on the grounds of the defect in this part at the time of each sale contract, thereby rejecting the Defendants’ assertion that Defendant E does not bear any warranty liability against the Plaintiffs.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiff B, C, and D, the lower court acknowledged that the change of the main household of each part of exclusive ownership that Plaintiff B, C, and D purchased as a defect caused by the construction error, and calculated each of the defect repair costs of Plaintiff B, C, and D in accordance with the ratio of the respective areas of exclusive ownership that were purchased by Plaintiff B, C, and D among the total areas of exclusive ownership of the instant apartment ownership on the premise that the sum of the cost of defect repair related to the change of the main household due to the appraisal by the appraiser is related to the entire areas of exclusive ownership of the instant apartment ownership.

However, according to the records, the above KRW 208,807,934 is not the cost of repairing the defects related to the entire portion of exclusive ownership of the apartment in this case, but it is limited to the cost of repairing the defects related to each portion of exclusive ownership owned by the above plaintiffs.

(See appraiser S’s inquiry inquiry conducted on October 16, 2017). Ultimately, the lower court erred in calculating damages in lieu of defect repair related to the change of the main household that the Defendants should pay to the said Plaintiffs due to misunderstanding of the appraiser’s appraisal result as above. In so doing, the lower court erred.