beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.10.06 2014가단24098

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 57,088,642 as well as 5% per annum from June 24, 2015 to October 6, 2015, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On September 29, 201, Defendant B built a multi-family house of 4 floors of a reinforced concrete structure sloping roof (hereinafter “instant house”) on the ground of 313.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”) with a building permit granted on September 29, 201.

On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land and housing from Defendant B and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31 of the same year.

Defendant C entered into the said contract on behalf of Defendant B on behalf of the Plaintiff.

On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff sold the instant housing to Nonparty E and F, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to E and F on November 12, 2013.

E/F discovered water leakage and fung occurring in the instant housing site, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on December 27, 2013 against the Plaintiff seeking compensation for damages arising from the defect of the instant housing (this Court Decision 2013Gau171250, 2014Gadan26414), and the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the Defendants on April 8, 2014 seeking compensation for damages against the same purport.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 evidence, the purport of the entire argument as to the defects in the object of the sale and purchase of the defects in the claim against the defendant Eul should be determined by the determination of whether the objects of the sale and purchase have the quality and condition that the subject matter should have been prepared in light of all the circumstances at the time of sale and purchase, including the course and purpose of the sale and purchase. The existence of

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da18506 delivered on January 18, 2000). According to the purport of the entire statement and oral argument, it is recognized that there was a connection with water leakage in the roof, rooftop, and each room of the instant house. (See Supreme Court Decision 98Da18506 delivered on January 18, 200.)

In light of the above defect’s level and degree, etc., the instant housing lacks objective nature and performance that can be expected in the transactional norm.