logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.24 2012가합518526
양수금
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the Defendant Non-permanent Housing Co., Ltd., the amount of KRW 574,944,042 and KRW 101,00,000 among them, the amount of KRW 574,944,042.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is an autonomous management body that is composed of residents in order to manage the 600 households and ancillary facilities of Gwangju Mine-gu A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), 600 households and 600 households, and the Defendant Non-permanent Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Non-permanent Housing”) newly constructed the instant apartment and leased the instant apartment after undergoing a pre-use inspection on June 18, 2004, and then converted for sale in lots upon obtaining approval for conversion for sale in lots on July 21, 2010.

B. The Defendant Non-permanent Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Non-permanent Housing Guarantee”) entered into a warranty contract for the instant apartment as to the warranty period from July 21, 2010 to June 17, 2014; and the guaranteed amount of KRW 203,725,800 (hereinafter “instant warranty contract”); and was issued a warranty bond from the Defendant’s Housing Guarantee.

Since then, the guarantee creditor of the contract of this case was changed from the head of the mine to the plaintiff.

C. From April 4, 2011, the Plaintiff continuously requested the repair of defects at the request of the occupants and the sectional owners of the instant apartment, and the Defendant Non-permanent Housing continued to perform the repair work for some defects. However, in the instant apartment, there still exist defects such as the sum table of the repair cost by the annexed Table 1, and in order to repair the apartment, the costs of the following amount are required on the premise that the following is “Partial painting” after the heating of the outer wall.

The plaintiff 1, including the transfer of damage claim, is 60 households of the apartment of this case.

arrow