손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall be the Appointor B, C, and Ayythy Ethy Ethy E.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The following shall be added to the purport of the entire pleading in Section 22 of the judgment of the first instance, which is amended or added:
"1-1. The building of this case where the defendant's liability for damages was created is the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings").
) The aggregate building stipulated in Article 1 is an aggregate building, and the fact that many defects have occurred over the time before and after the use inspection of the building in this case, causing trouble to the function, aesthetic or safety. As seen earlier, the co-owner of the building in this case shall be deemed to have the damage claim in lieu of the repair of the section for exclusive use and the section for common use of the building in this case pursuant to Article 9 of the Aggregate Buildings Act and Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act applied mutatis mutandis by the sectional owner of the building in this case. Thus, the defendant shall be deemed to have the damage liability in lieu of the defect repair to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
Article 82(1) of the former Local Finance Act (amended by Act No. 1091, Aug. 4, 2011) provides that “The extinctive prescription of a local government’s right to pay money shall expire if it is not exercised for five years, unless otherwise specifically provided by any other Act, with respect to the prescription of the local government,” and Article 82(2) provides that “The right to the local government for the purpose of paying money shall also be the same as paragraph (1).” Thus, the Defendant is a local government, and the right to claim damages in lieu of the Plaintiff’s repair of
The plaintiff is against the defendant.