2013dada 38773 Claims, etc.

A

1. B

2. C

3. D;

March 20, 2015

May 1, 2015

1. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed, respectively. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 61,872,662 won and 50,000,000 won among them, 5% per annum from June 17, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendants to purchase G multi-household 504 units of 149,000,000 won in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, E and F, which were newly built by the Defendants. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 17, 2013 after the payment of the purchase price.

B. Meanwhile, from July 1, 2013 to the above G multi-household housing construction, the Plaintiff started to build a six-story multi-household housing on the H’s ground adjacent to the above G multi-household housing. 504, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff purchased, has a living room and balcony window on that east, and a window towards north. Multi-household housing construction of the above multi-household housing is located on the east side of 504, and the Plaintiff’s building and building are located far away.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Gap 17 through 19, Gap 26-1, and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Claim for damages caused by deception

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap 6, 7, 12-1 through 3, and Gap 25 and witness I's testimony, the defendants are recognized as having been aware that at least the aforementioned G multi-household house was scheduled to be built for new buildings adjacent to the above G multi-household house before entering into the said sales contract with the plaintiff.

It is unclear whether the Plaintiff was infringed upon the view of the above newly constructed multi-households. However, in light of the location, structure and the number of floors of newly constructed multi-households and the distance between two buildings mentioned above 504, the above newly constructed multi-households seems to have a significant impact on the view and lighting of 504. Such circumstances are one of the important factors considered by the Plaintiff in determining whether to purchase multi-households. Thus, the Defendants are obligated under the good faith principle to inform the Plaintiff directly or through the person entrusted with the sale of multi-households, and thus, the Defendants violated this provision.

However, even if there were such errors by the Defendants, it is insufficient to recognize that the entry of Gap 15 alone incurred losses equivalent to the difference in the selling price as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

(b) Claim for damages caused by defects in a building;

The plaintiff asserts that the construction cost of KRW 11,872,662 is required to repair defects, such as the defect in the windowing of outer wall No. 504 above, rooftop water, bathing room, the defect in the floor and the defect in the exhausting of floor, the defect in heat, the system failure, and the defect in the multi-use room.

Comprehensively taking account of the witness I’s testimony in the statements in Eul 4-1 through 11, Eul 5-1 through 3, it is recognized that there were ruptures, such as ruptures, exposed coals, cosing, and household ties, and waterproof and other defects have occurred in G multi-household housing including 504 units, and that 13 million won of the defect guaranteed insurance was paid for repair. However, the entries in Gap 16 alone are insufficient to acknowledge the occurrence of defects and damages alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

3. The assertion and judgment

Thus, all of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Yellow-Jin Constitution