beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2015가합16571

하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상

Text

1. The Plaintiff’s ZS Construction Co., Ltd., Dongwest Construction Co., Ltd., Hanyang Construction Co., Ltd., and Kook Global.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a party. 1) The plaintiff is a party's status as the party. The plaintiff is a party's status as the party's 4-dong 273-dong 273 apartment units and ancillary facilities on the ground

(2) For the efficient management and operation of the apartment in this case, the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Corporation is a contractor for the new apartment in this case and the seller of the apartment in this case, and the Defendant branch Ess. (hereinafter “Defendant branch Es. Construction”), the Dong branch Es. (hereinafter “Defendant East Construction”), the Hanyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hanyang Construction”), the Koyang Global Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Kuyang Global”) is a contractor for the new apartment in this case to perform the construction of the new apartment in this case by contract from the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Corporation.

3) On December 5, 2012, Defendant Gyeonggi-do Corporation had undergone an inspection on the instant apartment on the use of the apartment on December 1, 2012. (B) On the instant apartment, due to the error in construction, the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawings (approval drawings) was not constructed due to the error in construction, or the alteration of the design drawings was constructed differently from the defective construction or design drawings, and thus, there was a defect such as rupture, water leakage, water quality, and water quality in the instant apartment. Accordingly, the instant apartment caused an obstacle to the function, aesthetic, or safety in the instant apartment.

Upon the request of occupants and sectional owners, the Plaintiff continuously requested the Defendant Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation to repair defects that occurred in the apartment of this case from the date of inspection of the apartment of this case.

2. Accordingly, the defendant Gyeonggi-do Corporation has performed a part of the repair work, but it has failed to perform its duty to repair defects properly, such as the repair has not been properly performed or has not been performed at all, and the apartment in this case is still attached Form 1. The repair cost aggregating table by the period of defect liability for common areas, and