beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.20 2016가합2063

손해배상(기)

Text

1.(a)

Defendant Daesung Industrial Co., Ltd. shall be appointed for the following reasons: C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, M, N,O, P, Q, Q, Q, T, U, V, X, X, Y.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties 1) Defendant Daesung Dong-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Daesung Dong-dong”)

) Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AR Apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”).

(2) The Defendant Daesung Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Daesung Industrial”) is a person who promoted and sold a new project by pre-sale and pre-sale and pre-sale.

(2) On June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a sale contract with the pertinent 2nd unit of Dong, with the owner or contractor of the above apartment on July 20, 201, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on September 8, 201, as the owner or contractor of the above apartment building. 2) The Plaintiffs, other than the Plaintiffs, entered into the sale contract with the pertinent 1st unit of Dong, with the pertinent 2nd unit of Dong, with the owner or contractor of the apartment building on July 20, 2011, after obtaining approval for use on July 20, 2011, and entered into the sale contract with the pertinent 1st unit of Dong and the pertinent 2nd unit of Dong, with the first unit of Dong and the pertinent 2nd unit of Dong, with the exception of the Plaintiffs, after purchasing the apartment unit of Dong, D, E, E, F, F, G, AJ, AM, AM, AO, Q, and Q (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiffs”).

B. The 376 co-owner of the instant apartment complex (total area of 25,379.21m2) is entitled to claim damages in lieu of defect repair under the Seoul Southern District Court 2013Gahap12052 against the Defendants on the ground that there were defects such as unconstruction, alteration construction, etc. in the common areas and exclusive areas of the said apartment complex (hereinafter “related lawsuit”).

2) On February 12, 2016, based on the appraisal result of the appraiser selected by the above court, the above court was above the cost of repairing the defects before the inspection of the apartment of this case on the basis of the completion drawing.