1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

An abbreviationd name established by the reasoning of the first instance judgment under paragraph (1) shall also be used as it is.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff is obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the defect repair cost, as the warranty liability pursuant to the contract of this case for defects, such as the crack of retaining walls and the subsidence of the ground of the parking lot, etc. of the building of this case. Since the plaintiff is liable for tort liability due to the defect liability pursuant to the contract of this case for the construction of the building of this case, or due to deception that did not notify of such illegal expansion and the illegal alteration, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for the plaintiff's damage.

B. Defendant 1) Around April 2016, the Plaintiff was responsible for the expansion of damages, such as preventing the Plaintiff from doing so, even though the Defendant intended to repair the Defendant around April 2016 on the cracks of retaining walls and the ground subsidence of the instant parking lot. (2) At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff changed the landscaping facility of the first floor parking lot to the parking lot, and the Plaintiff was a real estate business expert with considerable expertise and experience, and entered into a contract directly with the Plaintiff by checking each real part of the instant building.

Since it is customary to expand parking spaces in multi-households, such as the instant building, and to install new cities in Bera and utilize them as sections for exclusive use, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have already been aware of the illegal expansion and alteration of beeras at the time of the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be viewed as deceiving the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot be held liable for warranty against defects.

3. Determination

A. The reasons why the court stated in this part of the liability for damages.