손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Plaintiff B, E, C, and F, corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
5 The length from 14 to 12 pages shall be as follows:
“The Government”
A. According to the purport of the Plaintiff B’s respective evidence Nos. 3, 4-2, 79, 15-2, 19-1, and 2-2, Plaintiff B’s spouseJ concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on April 5, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 28, 2016, Plaintiff B’s death and Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 3, 2016 on the ground that Plaintiff B’s inheritance by consultation division was the cause for registration. At that time, the heir’s agreement on the delegation of all rights, such as compensation for damages, decoration, distribution, and outside construction, can be acknowledged.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff B’s claim for damages against the Defendant arising from the non-performance of the Defendant’s repair obligation as seen above, as seen in paragraph (4) below, as well as the above apartment in this case, was inherited by the sole inheritance of the damage claim arising from the non-performance of the repair obligation even in the lawsuit filed by the owner of the ABR apartment in Seocho-si. The sole inheritance was recognized for the wife who inherited the apartment in question (No. 2019, the Seoul Central District Court of the first instance, 2019, 2019Na2057, July 3, 2020, 200; Supreme Court Decision 2020Da251038, Nov. 12, 2020; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da251038, Nov. 33, 201); and in the case of Plaintiff E evidence No. 13739, Nov. 14, 2019; and