1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,270,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 6, 2013 to September 18, 2014, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the purchase of 302 Dong 202 (hereinafter “instant multi-household house”) among the “D” (multi-household house) that is a multi-household house on the land other than Chang-si, Yongsan-si, Seoul (hereinafter “instant multi-household house”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 167,50,000 to the Defendant’s account (Seoul Bank E) and paid KRW 167,50,000 as the sale price to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant subparagraph 202 on December 31, 2012, and resided in the instant subparagraph 202 from January 21, 2013.

B. On April 13, 2013, an accelerator pipe installed between the instant ceiling and the instant multi-household housing and 302, among the floors referred to in 302 Dong 302 and multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant defect”) caused water contamination (hereinafter “instant defect”). Accordingly, the inside of the instant subparagraph 202 was flooded.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, entry and video of Gap 1, 3, and 7 (including paper numbers), witness F and G testimony, witness H testimony, part of the witness H testimony, the result of the plaintiff principal questioning, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages caused by the defect of the instant multi-household house pursuant to Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Article 667 of the Civil Act as a business proprietor who sold the instant multi-household house, barring special circumstances.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the two-party comprehensive construction company, which is the contractor of the multi-household housing in this case, is the actual owner, and the Defendant only lent the name of the owner to the above company. Since the Plaintiff was well aware of such name lending, the Defendant, who is only the nominal owner, does not bear the above liability for damages.

The Defendant lent the name of the owner to the two comprehensive construction projects, and the fact of the name lending to all buyers of the instant multi-household housing including the Plaintiff.