beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.03.29 2016가단101460

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,900,00 for Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 2,000,000 for Plaintiff B; and (c) for each of them, from February 26, 2016 to March 29, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the council of occupants' representatives consisting of the representatives of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and manages the apartment of this case by means of self-management.

B. On May 28, 2013, Plaintiff A is a sectional owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale with respect to 111 Dong 1603 among the instant apartment units (hereinafter “the instant apartment units”), and Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A.

C. On June 1, 2013, the Plaintiffs moved into the instant household. On or around August 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a request for remuneration to the Defendant due to water leakage in a ward, etc.

The Defendant, in 2010, had the KCAC Co., Ltd. to execute the instant apartment waterproof construction project, but the repair project continued to occur on September 24, 2013, the number of water leakages, such as water leakages on January 22, 2014, and water leakages on February 3, 2014.

On the other hand, the construction statement, inspection report, etc. concerning the defect repair construction executed by the KCAC Engineering was not prepared.

As a result of discussions on rooftop waterproof Construction at a regular meeting from August 2015, the Defendant passed a resolution on October 15, 2015 to “the execution of waterproof Construction Works for the instant household samples and, if the leakage of water does not occur, to another household” and around November 4, 2015, the Defendant performed waterproof Construction Works to the instant household.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 6-1 to 5, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 10, Eul video and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant had a duty to manage the instant apartment with the care of a good manager, such as maintenance and repair of the public part of the apartment, in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Act, but has neglected to do so, thereby continuously resulting in

Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not easy to live in dwellings between several years, and they are water leakage and malodor.

참조조문