1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,445,034 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 25, 2016 to June 15, 2018.

Facts of recognition

On August 2014, the Defendant newly constructed a reinforced concrete structure sloping roof on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si, 5 urban living housing (the aggregate building consisting of 16 households, each of the first floor, the stairs rooms and parking lots, and the second and fifth floors; hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si, and modified it into an indoor space to make it available as part of exclusive use by putting the roof into the panel (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) so that it can be used as a parking lot without obtaining permission for use under the Building Act after obtaining the approval for use pursuant to the Building Act (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”), and changing the fireproof set up on the part of 20 square meters, which was designed as a landscaped area of the first floor parking lot on the completion drawing, into the parking space.

(2) The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant on December 2, 2014 with respect to the instant building with the purchase price of KRW 1.25 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed each registration of ownership transfer on December 17, 2014 with respect to the total 16 households of the instant building.

Around springing around 2015, the retaining wall of the building of this case was ruptured and the ground of the parking lot was 3 cm, and the plaintiff requested compensation to the defendant, and the defendant suggested that the repair work was defective after a lapse of one year to see the progress of the ground subsidence of the parking lot. The plaintiff also agreed to this.

On April 2016, when the crack of the retaining wall of the instant building increases and the ground subsidence of the parking lot increases, the Plaintiff requested remuneration to the Defendant. On April 28, 2016, the Defendant attempted to construct the retaining wall and the parking lot rupture with the “spos complex” through the defective construction contractor on April 28, 2016, but the Plaintiff failed to construct the retaining wall and the parking lot against the construction method.

[Ground of recognition] A. A. 1, 2, and 21 Evidence, Eul evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings is asserted by the parties concerned.