1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and

1. Where only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance that cited a part of the scope of adjudication in this Court, and limited the scope of dissatisfaction to a part of the cited amount of the claim, the entire claim, which was the object of adjudication in the judgment of first instance, is indivisible, but the scope of adjudication in the appellate trial is limited to the extent of appeal filed by the defendant among the parts in this trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da83110, Jun. 28, 2013). In this case, it is inevitable to examine the validity of the claim that falls within the scope of adjudication in question in order to examine the propriety of the claim, such as the occurrence of the claim, etc., and it does not go against

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da67321 delivered on April 11, 2003). We examine this case.

The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant, who is the seller of the Daegu North-gu AF building (hereinafter “instant building”), for the payment of KRW 18,912,471 in lieu of the defect repair of the part of the instant building sold by the Plaintiff among the instant buildings, and damages for delay.

The court of the first instance accepted the part of the plaintiff's claim for damages on the defect repair amount of KRW 14,844,741 and the damages on delay amount of KRW 18,862,732, and the damages on delay amount of KRW 4,017,91.

Accordingly, the defendant appealed to the whole part in favor of the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the scope of appeal was reduced by the statement of the application for change of the purport of appeal on February 23, 2017, to limit the scope of appeal to the defect repair portion of the above part of the judgment of first instance.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the defendant's reduced appeal among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the defect repair amount of common areas was excluded from the scope of the judgment.

However, under the following, the section for common use shall be within the scope necessary to examine the propriety of the claim for the repair of defects in the exclusive section belonging to the scope of trial.