beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.02.13 2011가합139476

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The part of the plaintiff (Appointed)'s conjunctive claim against Defendant Geum-dong Corporation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties 1) When they refer to both the plaintiffs and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs and the designated parties"), they refer to "the plaintiffs".

(3) Although the instant officetel 1 and the instant officetel 2 are indicated as the 8 household units in the 111st generation appraisal report for the instant officetel 233 households, the instant officetel 1 and the 111st generation appraisal report for the instant officetel 102, 104 and 105, and 205 of the 2nd floor 205 and 206 respectively, the 3 households have increased as the instant 11 household units have been divided into 205 and 206.

Total 244 households, hereinafter referred to as “the instant officetels”).

A) Of the attached list 3, some generations have sectional ownership as indicated in the ownership status of the household units. 2) The Defendant Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Land Trust”) and the Defendant Loscar Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Loscar”) jointly sell the instant officetels, and the Defendant Gold Mine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Gold Mining Co., Ltd”) is a project owner who jointly purchased the instant officetels, and the said officetel is a new construction project owner upon receipt of a contract for the said officetel from the Defendant Land Trust and Doscar to construct the said officetel.

B. Around August 28, 2009, a land trust and a land spicea obtained approval for the instant officetel.

C. As to the construction of the instant officetel, Defendant Gold-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant defect”) did not construct the parts to be built in accordance with the design drawings, or revised differently from the defective construction or design drawings, and constructed the instant apartment to the section for common use and the section for exclusive use from the section for exclusive use of the instant apartment, such as rupture of repair costs by the defective list Nos. 4 (hereinafter “instant defect”).

A. Accordingly, the officetel of this case has been affected by its function, aesthetic view, or safety, and the representative meeting of the officetel of this case has been requested by the plaintiffs, etc.