logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.18 2017가합15848
하자보수금 등
Text

1. The part of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C, which claimed KRW 1,002,075,658 and damages for delay.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The status of the parties is the autonomous management body comprised of three A Apartment-gu F (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) and 625 households located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu.

Defendant B is a company that constructed and sold the instant apartment after concluding a land trust contract with G and management-type land, and Defendant C is a new construction contractor that performed a new construction work of the instant apartment after being awarded a contract with Defendant B for the construction work of the instant apartment.

The Defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation is a surety that guarantees the obligation to repair defects after the inspection on the use of the apartment of this case by Defendant C.

On November 21, 2014, the Defendant C concluded a warranty contract with the Defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation as the guarantee creditor to guarantee the obligation to repair defects after the date of the inspection for the use of the instant apartment on two years from the date of the date of the first inspection for the use by 835,583,548 1,253,253,375,377,687,658 from the date of the 5 L-use inspection by 626,687,658 and 10 years from the date of the 5th inspection for the use by 10 years from the date of the 1st M-use inspection by 835,583,548 2nd 2nd 1st H.

Defendant B obtained approval for the use of the instant apartment on December 23, 2014, and transferred the instant apartment to the sectional owners around that time. After that, the Plaintiff, an autonomous management body of the instant apartment, constituted the Plaintiff and the guaranty creditor of the instant warranty contract, was changed to the Plaintiff.

The defect occurrence of the apartment of this case and the defect repair cost incurred in the construction of the apartment of this case, as the defendant C did not construct the part to be constructed in the construction of the apartment of this case, or changed the part to be constructed differently from the defective construction or design drawing, thereby causing the defect, such as rupture and water leakage, etc.

The plaintiff.

arrow