logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가단33528
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,718,955 to Plaintiff A and each of them from December 11, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A.F completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 18, 1993, 1201 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs’ apartment buildings”) Nos. 1, 1201, Dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City E apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the ground of sale on March 10, 1991.

B. The F died on May 11, 2013, and the F’s heir was the Plaintiff B, C, and D, the wife, and the Plaintiffs succeeded to the shares in 3/9, Plaintiff B, C, and D with respect to all property related to the apartment of the F’s Plaintiffs, respectively.

C. The defendant is an organization composed of representatives elected by the occupants in order to manage the apartment of this case, which is a multi-family housing pursuant to Article 43 of the Housing Act.

The first unit of apartment building with the plaintiffs is composed of 14 floors, and from February 201, water leakage occurred in the small room on the balcony of the plaintiffs' apartment building and its nearby living room, and the repair work on water leakage has not been executed until the date of the closing of argument.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant, who is in charge of the management work of the rooftop, which is the common area of the apartment of this case, neglected to perform his duty to maintain and repair the common area so that water can not occur. Accordingly, since the plaintiffs' apartment was leakage in the apartment of this case and the situation of the apartment of this case continues to exist, the plaintiffs are liable to compensate for damages. 2) The leakage of the plaintiffs' apartment of this case, which is the main part of the defendant's argument, is due to the defect in the pipe, which is the exclusive part of No. 1301 of the apartment of this case, which is not the common area of the apartment of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are filed.

arrow