1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are as follows: Daegu Dong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) No. 902, supra (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

A) As to the purchase price of KRW 182,00,000, the sales contract was concluded. The Plaintiff paid KRW 72,000,000 out of the purchase price to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the Defendant’s obligation to pay KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant. On April 18, 2013, the Defendant was a director of the instant apartment complex. [In the absence of any dispute over recognition, the entry of KRW 1,00,000, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 902 is the Plaintiff’s concealment of the fact that water leakage was generated on the date of rain and that there was a dispute with the residents of 802, the next floor, and that the Plaintiff sold the instant apartment to the Defendant by selling the instant apartment to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff should compensate for the total amount of 17,682,020 won of the repair cost of the apartment of this case due to water leakage and the amount of consolation money of 2,317,980 won for the plaintiff's mental damage.

B. The defendant's assertion No. 902 did not cause water leakage.

Although there is a fact that the residents of 802 request repair, it is only caused by the defect of the outer wall of the apartment of this case, and it does not require the defendant to repair it as the defect of common area.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, witness D's testimony, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the apartment of this case was 10 years since the construction of the apartment of this case (the completion of 2003), and 802 below 902 were residing at the time of the completion of the apartment of this case, D residing at the time of the completion of the apartment of this case, and at the time of the completion of the period from around 2011 to about 2 to 3 days, there was a phenomenon of singing the water, and D set forth this against the defendant on the idea that the water singing down in the ceiling was responsible for the upper floor (902).