1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, each of KRW 1,466,67, and Defendant D, each of KRW 488,88, and KRW 325,926, as well as KRW 325,926.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased, at 15.5 billion won, the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City I’s 578.1 square meter and its ground-based 2nd floor, and J buildings on the 6th floor (hereinafter “instant building”) jointly owned by Defendant B, Defendant C, and the network H (hereinafter “the network”) with one-third share, respectively. According to the foregoing sales contract clause 4. (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), the Plaintiff purchased the instant building at 15.5 billion won.

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Deceased a down payment of KRW 1.55 billion on the day of the contract, and KRW 13.95 billion on December 1, 2015, respectively. On December 1, 2015, the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant building from the Deceased on December 1, 2015.

C. On May 16, 2016, the deceased died and succeeded to the deceased, Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G, who are his wife, and their children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Unlike the Plaintiff’s notification from the Deceased at the time of the instant sales contract, there were defects such as leakage of underground floors due to the crack of concrete floor and the breakdown of fire-fighting equipment in the instant building, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s damage as a warranty liability under Article 580 of the Civil Act.

B. The Defendants’ instant building is an old-age building for which 30 years have passed since it was constructed, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract after sufficiently checking the condition of the instant building, and thus, did not know of the existence of a defect, or did not know due to negligence.

3. Determination

A. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 12, and 13 as to the claim for damages against the water leakage of the building, and the opinion and the whole purport of the arguments against K of the professional examiners of this court, it is the sales contract of this case.