1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's primary claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The basic facts and

2. The court's explanation on this part of the allegations by the parties is as follows, except for dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part III of the judgment of the court of first instance is divided into " December 22, 2014" and " July 2, 2015."

The plaintiff's assertion of No. 4 11-14 is as follows.

4) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 246,00,000, which is equivalent to the purchase price, as well as statutory interest from the date of the final payment of the purchase price, to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 5,766,030, which is equivalent to the enforcement fine, and KRW 8,060,760, which is equivalent to the registration cost, as compensation for damages. On the 5th page, the following arguments are added to the Defendant. 4) If the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the instant real estate to the Defendant, and the Defendant may refuse to comply with the obligation to compensate for damages until the return is made.

In addition, the plaintiff residing in the real estate of this case from August 9, 2009, which is the date of the occupancy of the claim, to the time of the above return, and without any legal cause gain profit equivalent to the rent of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return the rent amount as unjust enrichment. The defendant is set off against the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. It is recognized that a seller’s default liability or warranty liability in an apartment sales contract is recognized in cases where an apartment unit sold in units is held by a special agreement between the parties concerned, or it does not have good quality or character in trade, such as housing construction standards under the Housing Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da9139, Apr. 29, 2010). The same applies to multi-household sales.

In addition, the buyer knew or negligently knew that the defect occurred.