beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2015가합572798

양수금

Text

1. The Korean War Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) provides that KRW 129,564,957 for the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from December 11, 2015 to August 18, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a party. 1) The Plaintiff is an apartment building with 66 households, Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment building”).

(2) The Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) is a business entity that constructed and sold the instant apartment, and the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) is a company that concluded a defect warranty insurance contract regarding the instant apartment.

B. Co., Ltd., a company that performed the construction of the instant apartment by being awarded a contract for the new construction of the instant apartment from the national community prior to the conclusion of the defect warranty insurance contract (hereinafter “Bati Construction”), entered into a defect warranty insurance contract with the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance and the instant apartment as indicated below (hereinafter “the instant defect warranty insurance contract”), and was issued a warranty bond from the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance.

Although the plaintiff asserts that a warranty insurance contract for defects in the first year was also concluded, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Since then, the guarantee creditor of the defect warranty insurance contract of this case was changed to the plaintiff.

Serial No. 1 C insurance period (won) 1 C from November 25, 2010 to November 24, 2012 (second year) 76,305,690 2D 2, 2010 to November 24, 2013 (third year) 61,04,550 3 E from November 25, 2010 to November 24, 2013, 45,783,410 4F from November 25, 2014 to November 24, 2014 (fourth year) 45,783,410 4F from November 25, 2010 to November 25, 2015 (5j year)

C. On December 23, 2010, the apartment of this case, which had undergone a pre-use inspection of the apartment of this case, was conducted on December 23, 2010. The national cti construction failed to construct the apartment of this case according to the design drawing or constructed by changing the same differently from the defective construction or design drawing from the apartment of this case, thereby extending to the section for common use and section for exclusive use.