logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.17 2013가합49720
하자보수보증금 등
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim against Defendant Han New Co., Ltd. exceeds the money set forth in paragraph (2) of this Article.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous management organization organized by the occupants to manage the 18-dong, 1509 households and ancillary facilities (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon, the status of the Plaintiff as the party concerned is an implementer who constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and Defendant Han-gu Public Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han-gu Public Co., Ltd”) is a company that was contracted by the non-party partnership with the construction of the new apartment of this case.

B. On June 2, 2009, the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association entered into a guarantee agreement with the public interest of Korea and Japan and issued the following guarantee certificates to pay the warranty bond within the period and amount specified in the table below (hereinafter “each guarantee agreement of this case”) if the contractor fails to perform the repair obligation even after receiving a request for repair as to the defects arising from the construction defects in the apartment of this case (excluding the non-construction parts or design defects before the use inspection), which occurred after the date of the usage inspection (excluding the non-construction parts or design defects before the use inspection). Since the Plaintiff, an autonomous management body of the apartment of this case, the guarantee creditor of each guarantee agreement of this case, was changed to the Plaintiff.

The security deposit for the guarantee period from October 30, 209 to October 30, 2010 to October 29, 201, 793, 235, 784 2, 201 to October 30, 2011, to October 30, 201, 29 to October 1, 189, 853, 676 4, 2009 to October 30, 2012;

C. The instant apartment was inspected on July 30, 2010, and the instant apartment was undergone a pre-use inspection, and the Defendant Han-han constructed the instant apartment in a way different from the design drawing or the defective construction or design drawing. 2)

arrow