1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit for retrial shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff).

purport.

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is either a dispute between the parties or a record clearly.

The defendant is a company that newly built and sold B apartment units in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, and the plaintiff is a buyer who purchased 801 Dong 611 (hereinafter "the apartment unit of this case") from the defendant on February 12, 2008.

B. On August 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that there were various defects in the instant apartment after moving into the instant apartment, and filed a claim for defect repair expenses, such as the purport of the claim, with the court 201Da390489.

On November 14, 2013, this Court rendered a judgment of winning part of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) to the effect that “the Defendant would pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2.10,000 won and damages for delay thereof,” while the instant apartment is in demand of KRW 2.3 billion in the cost of repairing defects, the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff KRW 2.3 billion and damages for delay.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed with this Court No. 2013Na66460, while maintaining the existing argument in the above appellate court, the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the repair of defects and replacement costs due to the incomplete performance, since the Defendant did not construct the apartment building in accordance with the design drawing of the parties to the instant sales contract, but the above appellate court was incorporated into the sales contract with the design drawing.

On July 31, 2014, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the instant apartment building cannot be deemed an incomplete performance because it was partially constructed differently from the design drawing.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2014Da61227, on November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff’s final appeal was dismissed due to the failure of hearing on November 27, 2014, which eventually became final and conclusive.

2. Determination as to the existence of a ground for retrial

A. The plaintiff's assertion.