(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.09.02 2016가단7253

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2016.09.02 2016가단7253

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si 501 (the fourth floor; hereinafter “instant 501”) and the Defendant is the owner of Pyeongtaek 301 (the third floor; hereinafter “instant 301”).

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the Plaintiff by asserting that the number of damages under the instant subparagraph 301 had been incurred due to the defect in Suwon District Court No. 2014Gaman1538 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On June 18, 2014, the instant lawsuit was concluded, conciliation was concluded with the purport that the Plaintiff pays KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant as compensation for damages.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 22,00,000,000, the amount of KRW 17,000,000, the amount of the restoration cost, etc., and the delay damages therefrom, as the Defendant removed two sides of the right-hand side (4.5m) of the current corridor of 301 in this case, and expanded the living room, thereby causing water leakage in the instant case. The wall is set up and reconcing, and the door is not closed as the door is disconciled, etc., and the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 22,00,000,000, the amount of the restoration cost.

Then, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was the removal of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff or the defendant has a liability to compensate for damages, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, so this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

B. The plaintiff paid KRW 3,00,000 to the defendant in the lawsuit related to the defect in this case, and later, it was revealed that the plaintiff did not receive any amount due to the defect in this case 501. Thus, the defendant is above the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.02.03 2016나20499

-전주지방법원 2015.08.20 2014나2740

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.31 2013가단106701

-서울서부지방법원 2019.04.05 2018나31914

-울산지방법원 2016.11.23 2016나2444