The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was in a situation where the Plaintiff could not perform the obligation to transfer the right to a site concerning the instant project site to the buyer of the instant case, in view of the fact that each judgment against the Plaintiff lost in the relevant lawsuit regarding the instant land, which is a part of the instant project site, became final and conclusive.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for a guarantee

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the warranty period has expired by undergoing a pre-use inspection by Dong on the instant apartment based on its stated reasoning, on the ground that the pre-use inspection by Dong was not yet terminated.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the termination of the guarantee period.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.