logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2014.11.27 2013나2611
하자보수금등
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a sectional owner of the C commercial building 305, Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant 305”).

The defendant is the owner of the above C 402, and operated the hospital with the trade name of "E Hospital" by leasing 401 and several divided commercial stores of the D and other C buildings.

B. On September 2006, with respect to the instant subparagraph 305 owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Fire”) on the condition that the period from September 11, 2006 to December 31, 2006, and the monthly management expenses shall be paid by the lessee, and the monthly management expenses shall be KRW 3,330,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the period of the contract shall be increased to KRW 3,60,000 (excluding value-added tax) around February 2008, while Samsung Fire occupied and used the instant subparagraph 305, and the period of the contract shall be extended from February 11, 2008 to February 10, 2009.

C. However, on around 2009, the Defendant, after performing artificial test works inside the above C-4 hospital building, began to become a water leakage (hereinafter “instant water leakage”) with the ceiling and inner walls of this case, which are the next floor. The Defendant requested the repair of defects to the Defendant using the fourth floor, but the Defendant did not comply with this.

Samsung Fire did not meet the term of the lease contract, terminated the lease contract with the Plaintiff on July 8, 201, and removed from the instant 305.

E. 305 of the instant case is the state of factory laboratory since Samsung Fire was removed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7, 9 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The ground for the plaintiff's assertion that water leakage occurred in the 305 spring site of this case is installed in the drainage pipe by wrong installation of the main drainage pipe facility while the defendant performs the interior interior interior interior interior testing of the fourth-class hospital.

arrow