1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the judgment equivalent to that of paragraph (2) to the argument that the defendant is satisfied as a reason for appeal by this court, and thus, this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. At the time of the Defendant’s assertion, it is reasonable to deem that the actual area of each building of this case exceeds 321.3 square meters in the registry or the building registry, and that three floors without the above public book are used as guest rooms, and the Plaintiff was aware of such fact. Thus, since the Plaintiff knew of the defect of each building of this case or was negligent in not knowing such fact, the Defendant does not bear the warranty liability pursuant to the proviso of Article 580(1) of the Civil Act.

B. Determination 1) The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was aware of each of the illegal construction parts of this case, which was extended or reconstructed without obtaining permission from the competent authority at the time of the instant sales contract, or without filing a report, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. 2) According to the proviso of Article 580(1) of the Civil Act, the seller’s warranty liability is not acknowledged where the purchaser was unaware of the defect of the object of sale by negligence. The case where the purchaser was unaware of the defect due to negligence refers to the case where the purchaser was able to know the defect if he was aware of the defect due to negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da827 delivered on July 24, 1979). However, it refers to the case where the Plaintiff was unaware of the defect due to negligence, even though he was aware of the defect due to the purchaser’s care of the general public (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da827 delivered on July 24, 1979).