1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2...

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the witness I of the first instance trial and the statement in the claim for damages caused by deception, the Defendants are acknowledged to have been aware that at least the aforementioned G multi-household house was scheduled to be constructed as new buildings adjacent to the above G multi-household house (hereinafter “the instant multi-household house”) before entering into the said contract with the Plaintiff. In light of the location and the number of floors of the structure and new building and the distance between the two buildings, the said new building seems to have a significant impact on the view and mining of 504 of the instant multi-household house. Such circumstance is one of the important factors to be considered in determining whether to purchase the instant multi-household house 504. Thus, the Defendants are obligated under the good faith principle to inform the Plaintiff directly or through the person entrusted with the sale. Since the Defendants did not notify this, the Defendants violated their duty under the good faith principle and thereby, they should compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by breach of such duty.

In addition, according to the result of the appraisal commission made by the appraiser J of this court, since the right to sunshine of 504 multi-household house of this case was infringed due to the construction of the said new building, and the damage was caused to decline in the value of 2,940,000 won, the defendants shall jointly pay the above money and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. According to the result of the appraisal commission by the appraiser K of this court for the claim for damages caused by building defects, the number of buildings in multi-use rooms of this case is 504.