(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.06 2017가합502274

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.06 2017가합502274

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2003, Plaintiff A and H, I, J, and K, the former husband of the Defendant (Divorce around July 2, 2008) awarded a contract for construction of a new apartment on the ground of 1,500 square meters in the name of M Co., Ltd. and N Co., Ltd. to L, the former husband of the Defendant, for KRW 2.6 billion (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) On December 1, 2003, the land was divided into P, Q, R, S, and T, and five multi-household houses on the ground of the above F land (hereinafter “multi-household houses in this case”) with two multi-household houses on the fiveth floor above (hereinafter “multi-household houses in this case”), and five (5), including P, etc., the building owner and the building owner of the apartment house in this case and the building owner of the apartment house in this case, and the building owner of the apartment house in this case and the building owner of the apartment house in this case, the building owner of the apartment house in this case and the building owner of the apartment house in this case, the building owner of the apartment house in this case and the building owner of the apartment house in this case, the building owner of the apartment house in this case and the building owner of the apartment in this case, the building owner of the apartment in this case and the building owner of the apartment house in this case, the building owner of the apartment in this case and the building owner of the apartment in this case, the building owner of the apartment in this case and the building.

(3) L is no longer able to continue the construction under the name of M&A as the construction license of M&A was revoked. As the construction of multi-household housing and new apartment housing in this case was combined, AD (AE Co., Ltd. before the alteration; hereinafter “AD”).

A) On May 29, 2005, around May 29, 2005, the name of the contractor succeeded to the status of the contractor under the instant contract (hereinafter referred to as “L, etc.” by referring collectively to L, AD as the part of the contractor for the instant construction project.

(4) L was approved for the use of the instant multi-household newly built on September 7, 2005.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.11.22 2017가합24308

-서울북부지방법원 2015.10.14 2014가합4914

-수원지방법원 2017.01.26 2015가단14200

-부산지방법원 2018.11.22 2016가단320650

-서울고등법원 2019.05.01 2019나2003217