1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. On October 200, the Defendant agreed that the lessee of the A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the public rental housing located in C (hereinafter “instant apartment”) will implement the outside design construction without compensation after the lapse of five years of mandatory rental period.

Until August 2008, the Defendant completed the conversion of the apartment of this case to the above lessee for sale in lots, but did not implement the outside design construction according to the above agreement.

The plaintiff, who was the lessee of the apartment of this case, was transferred from the person who was converted for sale in lots, or from the sectional owner who was assigned the right to the apartment of this case, pursuant to the above agreement, notified the defendant of the transfer of such right.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 283,80,000, which is equivalent to the cost of external design construction, due to the nonperformance of the above agreement.

2. 1 The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit contravenes res judicata of the final judgment rendered in the case No. 2011Gahap10287 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, is unlawful.

According to the statement No. 1, this court's significant facts, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above-mentioned District Court 201Gahap10287 case is a lawsuit seeking damages on the ground that the plaintiff acquired the claim for damages in lieu of defect repairs, such as external walls rupture, from the sectional owners of the apartment of this case, on the other hand, the lawsuit of this case is seeking damages equivalent to the cost of the external design construction on the ground that the defendant agreed to implement the external design construction without compensation even though it was not implemented.

Therefore, the lawsuit in the above-mentioned District Court 201Gahap10287 is different from the lawsuit in this case, so res judicata effect of the judgment in the above-mentioned District Court 201Gahap10287 does not extend to the lawsuit in this case.

The defendant's defense is justified.