하자보수금등
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Defendant Western Development Co., Ltd. is 698,778,936 won and 936 won to the Plaintiff.
1. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 8 to 12, 15, 17, 19 to 24, 26 to 29, 32, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including each number), the results of the first instance appraiser B and C, the results of each inquiry into appraiser B, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
A. Defendant Seo-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) constructed a A apartment with 10 Dong-dong 693 households (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and had it inspected on October 19, 2007 by the head of Ulsan-gun on the use of the trade name “Smi-gun Development” (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).
B. On October 8, 2007, the Defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) concluded a contract for warranty liability with the Defendant Company by designating the guarantee creditor as the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor as the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract for the repair of defects”). Since then, the guarantee creditor of the said contract for the repair of defects was changed to the Plaintiff as the council of occupants’ representatives was constituted.
Serial No. 1 E Guarantee Period (Defect Security Liability Period) 1 E on October 22, 2007 through October 21, 2008 (1) 657,198,288 2 F on October 22, 2007 through October 21, 2007 (2) 22 through 657,198, and 288 3 G G G 288 22, 2007 and 985,797, 4324 HH 22, 207 and 492,8,716 I6, Oct. 21, 207; 208, Oct. 22, 2007; 196, Oct. 21, 2007; 196, Oct. 22, 2007;
C. In the process of constructing the apartment of the Defendant Company, defects occurred in the apartment of this case due to the unconstruction, defective construction, modified construction, etc., and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant Company to repair the defects, but still there remains such defects as stated in the attached Table 1.
The plaintiff acquired the damage claim in lieu of the defect repair to the defendant company from each sectional owner of the 691 unit of the apartment of this case, as shown in the attached Table attached hereto.