logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.11.10 2013다78310
하자보수보증금 등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the part on Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), the Plaintiff appealed against the part on the Defendant B among the judgment below, but there is no indication in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief any grounds for appeal.

B. As to the part regarding Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”)’s ground of appeal, the Plaintiff’s assertion in the instant lawsuit against Defendant B on June 22, 2009, which was within the exclusion period, was alleged to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C, which was established by investing capital, is the same as the exercise of the Plaintiff’s right or defense against Defendant C,” during the fact-finding proceedings, and the lower court erred by omitting the judgment, even though it should have been determined on whether the Plaintiff could be deemed to have complied with the exclusion period by filing the instant lawsuit against Defendant C. 2. 2) The reasoning in the written judgment is sufficient to recognize that the text is justifiable, and it is unnecessary to determine all of the parties’ allegations and defense methods.

(Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if a court’s ruling does not state a direct judgment on the matters alleged by the parties, if it is possible to find out that the relevant assertion was cited or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasons for the judgment, it cannot be said that the

Even if the decision was not actually made, if it is obvious that the assertion is rejected, it cannot be said that there was an omission of decision due to the lack of influence on the conclusion of the decision.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da87174, Apr. 26, 2012). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the sectional owners who purchased the instant apartment are entitled to purchase the instant apartment.

arrow