하자보수보증금 등
1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim for exchange change and a claim expanded in the trial, shall be as follows:
1. The Court shall accept this part of the underlying facts in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the reasons in addition to dismissal or addition as follows.
Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance added the "Defendant Gender Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Gender Comprehensive Construction") to "Ssung Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Ssung Comprehensive Construction")," less than "Defendant Gender Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Gender Comprehensive Construction")," to "Ssung Comprehensive Construction" (hereinafter referred to as paragraph (2) is common to this paragraph), and 3rd 11, "The rehabilitation procedure was commenced on December 24, 2014 for the Gender Comprehensive Construction, and the litigant of Gender Comprehensive Construction is regarded as the manager of the Gender Comprehensive Construction (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Manager")," respectively.
At the bottom of the fourth to 3 to 4, “Around December 7, 2012, notice of the assignment of the above credit was given to Defendant Sung-sung Co., Ltd.” to the effect that “as to the 187 household on July 12, 2012, as to the 43 household on September 20, 2012, as to the 32 household on November 15, 2012, as to the 22 household on January 23, 2013, respectively, a claim for the payment of the transfer credit was made by giving notice of the assignment of credit to Sung-sung comprehensive construction.”
Parts 5-1 to 2 [Grounds for Recognition] shall be added to "Items A 19, 20, and 21."
2. Determination on the defects of the apartment of this case, which is a common dispute over each of the claims against the defendants
A. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence, such as the inspection of the use of the apartment of this case and the occurrence of defects, and the written or image of Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 26, 29, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 26, and the result of the appraisal by the court of first instance and the court of this court, as a result of the entrustment of each appraisal supplementation by the court of first instance to the above appraiser C, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
1. The apartment of this case was inspected on May 28, 2003.