1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 201, Defendant Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On October 24, 201, the Plaintiff’s mother B purchased 476 officetel 376 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff was transferred the buyer’s status under the sales contract for the instant real estate from B.

B. Defendant Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. is the contractor who constructed the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant real estate had a defect in construction, such as fung fung fung fung in the wall surface due to water leakage, and the construction of the said defect was carried out from August 8, 2013 to September 21, 2013. Accordingly, on August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff, who moved to the instant real estate with her husband, had to reside in another place for 45 days during which the said construction was carried out, and thus, the Plaintiff incurred a total of KRW 13,500,000 per day for 135 days during which the said construction was carried out, as well as mental suffering.

The Defendants, who are the sellers of the instant real estate and the constructors, are liable for damages due to defects in accordance with the warranty liability under Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Article 667 of the Civil Act. As such, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000, including the above property damages of KRW 13,500,000,000.

3. The descriptions and images of the evidence No. 2-1 to No. 3 alone existed in the instant real estate as asserted by the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff suffered an irrecoverable mental suffering due to the defect in the construction or due to the defect in the construction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there is no other evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion.