beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 858,257 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 1, 2013 to January 29, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant to purchase purchase price of KRW 3,150 million (including KRW 150 million for non-goods and facility expenses) from the Defendant, Busan, D, and Eel (hereinafter “instant building,” and the date of approval of usage inspection to the eight-story building, January 24, 2003). On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the purchase balance to the Defendant and runs accommodation business from that time.
B. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff confirmed that water leakage was incurred in the guest rooms, etc. of the instant building and filed the instant lawsuit on or around February 10, 2014. Of the instant building, the Plaintiff’s number of guest rooms 202, 203, 205, 503, 505, 603, and 605: Chang Ho Ho-ju, 602, 703, and 702: Sejong Ho-do pipes, 802, 802, 803, and 805: the amount of repair cost was confirmed as at February 10, 2014, and the amount was at least KRW 50,000,50,000,00,000,000,000,000,000 won as of February 1, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 25, Gap evidence 5-1 and 2-2, appraiser F's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The plaintiff's warranty 1 of water leakage liability asserts that the defendant is responsible for compensating for damages equivalent to the cost of defect repair, since there are water leakage defects in the building of this case as seen in the above basic facts.
The purpose is to ask the warranty liability under Article 580 of the Civil Code.
The defendant can not be seen as a defect of the building in light of the following facts: first, the boiler leakage of the building of this case is confirmed to have no leakage at the time of the sale of this case; the plaintiff's use and management poor; and there was a high probability of leakage of water due to the plaintiff's poor use and management; second, the plaintiff can immediately inspect whether the building of this case was defective without delay pursuant to Article 69 (1) of the Commercial Act.