beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 900,000 against the Defendant and its related thereto from May 3, 2018 to May 29, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant the Dolet E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for KRW 197,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 26, 2016.
B. On November 2016, the Plaintiff received a letter from a person who resides on the lower floor below the instant real estate and discovered my coi in connection with water leakage in the lower floor of the living room of the instant real estate and remote areas as a result of confirmation.
C. The Plaintiff spent KRW 400,000, in total, KRW 900,000 on May 24, 2018 to repair defects arising from water leakage, fruit, and mycoin in the instant real estate as repair costs.
[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 9, Gap evidence 10, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 15, Gap evidence 16-1, witness testimony and the purport of whole pleadings
2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim seeking compensation for damages arising from the defect of the instant real estate purchased from the Defendant’s determination on the instant defense, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit, which was filed after the lapse of the warranty period from October 26, 2016, the ownership was transferred, is unlawful.
On the other hand, the buyer's exercise period for the seller's warranty liability under Article 582 of the Civil Code is the exercise period of judicial or extra-judicial rights, and it is not the release period for a judicial claim.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2344, Nov. 12, 1985). According to the evidence No. 1 and No. 3, according to the evidence No. 1 and No. 3, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Plaintiff was aware of the defect of water leakage, etc., and then sent it to the Defendant on February 7, 2017, which was within June 2016, and at that time, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff’s claim was served to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant’s principal safety defense that was exercised after the expiration of the exclusion period.