(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.04.04 2018나2039059 (1)

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) 서울고등법원 2019.04.04 2018나2039059 (1)

하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant C Co., Ltd. in the judgment is modified as follows.

Defendant C Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the partial dismissal as follows. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

[Supplementary Use] Defendant B shall be deemed to be “B”.

The attached Form 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "attached Form 1" and the attached Form 30 through 44 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the total sum of construction expenses by the period of responsibility" and the attached Form 6 shall not be separately attached.

2. Summary of the Parties’ Opinion

A. The plaintiff B is the executor who constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and bears the warranty against the sectional owner of the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff was transferred the damage claim in lieu of the defect repair against B from the transfer household of this case.

As a contractor for the new apartment construction of this case, Defendant C is liable for the damages in lieu of the defect repair of the apartment in this case.

However, there is a insolvent situation in B, and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the above damage compensation against the defendant C in subrogation of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is entitled to claim the payment of the damage compensation as stated in the purport of the claim in subrogation of the defendant C, and the defendant Corporation is entitled to claim the payment of the defect warranty bond

B. The Defendants’ assertion that the defect is not a defect or a design defect, rather than a defect in construction, or a defect in the use and management of the occupants. Even if the defect is recognized as a defect, the repair cost was calculated excessively and the value-added tax should be deducted.

In the case of a defect in the year 1 to 4 years as set forth in the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the exclusion period is limited.

참조조문

-건설산업기본법

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.06.19 2014나2021586

-서울고등법원 2019.05.03 2018나2067344

-서울고등법원 2019.10.04 2018나2060824

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.23 2017가합539979

-서울고등법원 2020.01.31 2019나2005459