logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.29 2017가합529316
손해배상 등 청구
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to KRW 1,856,162,032 and its KRW 1,50,000,000 among Defendant B Co., Ltd., from May 3, 2017;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the party is an autonomous management body consisting of the representatives of the residents of the 1,041 residents of the 1,041 household located in the Jeonsan-si, Jeonsan-si, the Plaintiff is an autonomous management body. Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is an executor who constructed and sold the instant apartment, and the Defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) guaranteed the obligation to repair the defects of the instant apartment in the Defendant B, and D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “D”) is a contractor who constructed the instant apartment upon entering into a contract with the Defendant B.

B. From June 14, 2010 to June 13, 2011 to June 13, 2011 to June 13, 2011 (the first year) 2010 to June 14, 2012 to June 13, 2013 to June 13, 201 to June 14, 2012 to June 13, 2012 to June 13, 2014 to June 14, 2016 to June 14, 201 to June 14, 2010 to June 13, 201 to June 13, 2013 to June 14, 2013 to June 13, 201 to guarantee the warranty bond (the second year) and the warranty bond (the second year) to guarantee the warranty bond (the second year to June 20, 2013 to June 14, 2010 to 2037).

(2) On June 14, 2010, the instant apartment was approved on June 14, 2010, and the guaranty creditor of the instant guarantee agreement was changed to the Plaintiff.

C. A defect occurrence and defect repair cost 1) D did not construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing while constructing the instant apartment, or constructed the apartment differently from the design drawing or in a defective way, thereby causing a defect such as rupture and water leakage to the section for common use and the section for exclusive use of the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff continuously requested D to repair the defect. The Plaintiff was continuously requested D to repair the defect. The total sum (the cost) of the pre-use inspection (the pre-use inspection (the pre-use inspection) in the first and second years of the second year of the second year of the construction of the instant apartment (the second year of the second year of the construction of the previous non-construction) (the total (the pre-use inspection) of the pre-use inspection (the pre-use inspection) (the pre-use inspection was 591,81, 217, 908, 79

arrow