1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance is citing this case are citing this case by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the plaintiff added the following judgments as to the matters asserted in this court.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant company, as the contractor of the instant officetel, bears the warranty liability by applying mutatis mutandis Articles 67 through 668 of the Civil Act pursuant to Article 9 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act").

Article 3 of the Addenda to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 11555, Dec. 18, 2012) provides that the warranty liability of a building sold prior to the enforcement of this Act shall be governed by the previous provisions, Article 9 of the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 11555, Dec. 18, 2012) provides that the warranty liability of a seller shall be limited to the warranty liability of a seller, and the instant officetel is a building constructed and sold at the time of the enforcement of the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 1155, Dec.

B. The plaintiff asserts that in order to build a road of multi-family housing under Article 10(2) of the Regulations on Standards, etc. of Housing Construction, the traffic lane of this case is unlawful in violation of the following provisions that the distance from the boundary line to the outer wall of multi-family housing should not be less

Article 3 of the former Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction, which was applied at the time of the instant passage, provides that the said provisions shall apply to the housing, etc. to be built with the approval of the housing construction project plan, and stipulates that fines or imprisonment may be imposed if the said provisions violate the Housing Construction Standards, etc. established under the delegation by the Housing Act, and as the Plaintiff itself acknowledges.