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. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) above with respect to the Plaintiffs’ additional assertion at the trial of the court of first instance, and this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s additional assertion 1) The former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11243, Jan. 26, 2012; hereinafter “former Housing Act”).

Article 10(1) of the Act provides that “If a landowner constructs a house, he/she may implement a project jointly with a person who has registered as prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter referred to as “registered business operator”), notwithstanding Article 9(1). In such cases, a landowner and a registered business operator shall be deemed joint business operators.” The Defendants constitute joint business operators who jointly implement the instant project with B, a registered business operator under the former Housing Act, pursuant to the said provision. As such, joint business operators are governed by the legal principles of a cooperative under the Civil Act, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to return or pay the down payment and damages indicated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff. 2) In relation to the construction of the instant urban-type residential housing, the construction permission was granted pursuant to Article 11 of the Building Act without obtaining approval of the housing construction project plan under the former Housing Act, but the scale of housing and facilities under Article 16(1) proviso of the former Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23488, Jan. 6, 2012; hereinafter “former Housing Act”).