손해배상(기)등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.
Of the claims against the defendant, attached Form 1.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the part concerning the claim against Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd, except the part concerning the claim against Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd. in the first instance
Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the relevant part, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In addition, the part stating the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is that “Defendant B” is each “Defendant B,” and each “Defendant C” is each “Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial,” and each “Defendant D” is each “Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial,” respectively.
According to the fourth decision of the second instance court, the 3th decision of the first instance court is followed by the “scopic viewing”.
Of the 7th sentence of the first instance court, the 11th sentence (3-c and 4) on the 7th sentence of the first instance court is as follows.
“A. The starting point of the exclusion period is from the time when the owner of the instant apartment acquired the instant apartment. Around December 26, 2008, the inspection date of the use of the instant apartment, the delivery of the instant apartment appears to have been made (the Plaintiff bears the responsibility to prove that the exclusion period has been complied with, and there is no other evidence to prove that the apartment has been delivered after the above time.
(2) According to the records in Gap evidence No. 2-1, Gap evidence No. 2-1, Gap evidence No. 6, 12, and 14, among each of the households of the apartment of this case, the case of 9.5 square meters among the households of this case (the sum of the whole-owned areas thereof is 893.55 square meters).
() It can be recognized that the notice of the assignment of claims against the Defendant was given around December 27, 2018 and around May 28, 2019, when ten years have elapsed since the date of the usage inspection (the Plaintiff’s exclusion period as to the instant apartment YY Z, around July 5, 2017, prior to the expiration of the exclusion period, to Defendant and Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial.