logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.25 2015가합554011
하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendants jointly do so, and the rest of the designated parties indicated in the list of the Plaintiffs (Appointed Parties) and the annexed list No. 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs are the buyers or sectional owners who have succeeded to each subparagraph of the attached Table 2 and each subparagraph in the attached Table 2's "Number" among M, which is a neighborhood living facility located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "the instant condominium building").

The Defendants are joint project undertakers who newly built the instant aggregate building and sold it to the Plaintiffs.

B. A Dongbu Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongbu Construction”) that was newly constructed by being awarded a contract for a new construction of the instant condominium building from the Defendants who suffered defects of the instant condominium building (hereinafter “Dongbu Construction”) had obtained approval from the head of the Gu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 4, 2012 after completing the said construction, and thereafter the Plaintiffs moved into the said

However, due to the construction of a new aggregate building in this case, the construction of a new aggregate building in this case did not construct a part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing, or performed a defective construction differently from design drawings, the construction of a new aggregate building in this case caused any defect that interferes with the function, aesthetic or safety of equal heat, water, etc. in common areas and sections for exclusive use.

Therefore, the management body operation council of the instant aggregate building requested the Defendants and the construction of the building from around August 2014 to August 2015 several times for the fundamental remuneration of defects in the instant aggregate building, but did not properly perform.

The total area of the instant section for exclusive use is 9,755.68 square meters, and the total area of the exclusive ownership owned by the plaintiffs for each household is 9,198.07 square meters (the respective exclusive ownership area of each household where the plaintiffs own the instant aggregate building is divided shall be the same as the relevant column in attached Table 2) and the ratio of the area of the Plaintiffs’ exclusive ownership compared to the total generation of the instant aggregate building is 94.28% (9,198.07 square meters/9,75.68 square meters, and less than two decimal places).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1.

arrow