1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The intervenor succeeding to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. New construction and use approval 1) Dongbu Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongbu Construction”).

2) On December 22, 2006, Alartwon City Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Alartwon").

2) On April 20, 2007, the construction of an apartment unit was reported on April 20, 2007 and began with the construction of an apartment unit and obtained approval for the use on October 9, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership 1) D on May 16, 2007, the above C Apartment No. 110-dong 2104 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

2) On September 14, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife succeeded to the rights and obligations of the instant apartment from D, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 29, 2009.

3) On October 21, 2010, the Plaintiff donated E’s share in the instant apartment from E, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff. (c) On January 7, 2015, the decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for the construction of the said building and the Defendant’s decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for the construction of the said building and the Defendant’s construction of the said building department, the Defendant was the administrator thereof, and taken over the instant lawsuit. The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 7, 90, Eul’s evidence 8-1 through 6, and Eul’s evidence 25, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion lies in a number of defects, such as phenomenon and wall rupture, due to construction or defective construction differently from the design drawing.

In addition, at the time of the sale, the construction of the Dong department made a false and exaggerated advertisement of the apartment of this case as the "environment-friendly building", thereby deceiving the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered property mental damage, such as the purport of the claim.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages in lieu of defect repair, liability for default, liability for tort, etc.