Defendant’s KRW 109,48,514 and KRW 80,596,09 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 109,48,514, and KRW 25,685,503 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 80,594.

In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination on the ground that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to construction permission, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to construction permission, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Items 3,609,643 / [Attachment 2-104] Partial Improvement Work (Out-of-House : 15,184,762 / [Attachment 2-108] Construction Work (Out-of-House 2: 1,5070* 800 m207m*1207m207m2) on the side of an underground parking lot / 11,257,612 / [public use 1-13] Construction Work without any specific description of the plan for sale in lots / 2109 / [Attachment 2-104] Construction Work without any specific description of the plan for sale in lots / 201m201 / 201m25m209 / 201m201m209 / 301m25m201m2) of the aggregate sale in lots / 301m25m21m2 of the aggregate building as stated.

Therefore, even if an aggregate building was constructed differently from the project approval drawing or the construction commencement drawing, it cannot be viewed as a defect unless there are special circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da18762 Decided October 15, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da22772 Decided October 27, 2014, etc.). An appraiser is an appraiser.