beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. shall be 412,590.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Plaintiff is the party to the dispute. The Plaintiff is an apartment complex of approximately 1 Simzymar 1, which is located in 3280, according to the Daegu Suwon-gu Franchisium punishment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(2) Defendant Effective Investment Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Effective Investment Development”) is a project proprietor who newly built and sold the instant apartment, Defendant Effective Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Effective Investment Development”) is a contractor of the instant apartment, and Defendant Effective Investment Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Effectiveness”) is a contractor of the instant apartment, and Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd”) guarantees the obligation to repair the defects of the instant apartment.
B. From June 20, 2008 to June 19, 2009 to June 20, 2009 to June 19, 2009 to June 20, 2008 to June 335, 604, 2200 to June 19, 2010 to June 335, 204, 203 to June 20, 2008 to June 20 to June 20, 2008 to June 19, 201 to June 503, 406, 304 to June 20 to June 19, 201 to June 20 to June 20, 201 to June 19, 201 to June 20 to June 19, 2013 to June 201 to June 20, 201 to June 31, 207, 2017
(2) On June 20, 2008, the effect of the Defendant had undergone a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment, and around that time, transferred the instant apartment to the sectional owners, respectively. After which the Plaintiff, an autonomous management organization of the instant apartment, was constituted, the guarantee creditor of the instant guarantee agreement was changed to the Plaintiff.
C. The defect occurrence and defect repair cost of the apartment of this case did not perform the construction work of this case while constructing new apartment of this case, or changed the construction differently from the design drawing.
Accordingly, from June 17, 2009, the Plaintiff is the occupant of the apartment of this case.