logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.07.21 2015가합201172
양수금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 297,096,229 among the Plaintiff and KRW 201,00,000 among the Plaintiff, shall be from February 14, 2015, and KRW 96,096,229.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is an apartment building A in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant apartment building”).

(2) In order to manage 253 households, the Defendant is an autonomous management body organized by its occupants. (2) The Defendant is a project proprietor who constructed and sold the instant apartment.

B. On February 11, 2009, the inspection of use and the occupancy of the apartment of this case was conducted on February 11, 2009, and the occupancy was conducted around that time.

C. 1) The occurrence of defects and the claim for repair of the apartment in the instant case were not constructed by the Defendant while constructing the apartment in accordance with the design drawing, or the construction of the apartment in a defective manner or differently from the design drawing was conducted by changing the construction differently from the design drawing, thereby causing a defect such as rupture, water leakage, etc. to the section for common use and the section for exclusive use of the instant apartment. Accordingly, the apartment in the instant case caused an impediment to the function, aesthetic or safety in the apartment. 2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the repair of defects at the request of the Defendant at the request of the occupant or sectional owner of the instant apartment, but there still

(The detailed details are considered in paragraph 2 below).

(1) The Plaintiff’s assignment of claims is 223 households among the total 253 households of the instant apartment (hereinafter “transfer household of this case”).

(2) The ratio calculated by dividing a total of 18,238.84 square meters of the area of the entire apartment of this case by the total area of 20,720.12 square meters from the total area of the entire apartment of this case is 88.02% (hereinafter “the ratio of the assignment of claims of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 19 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and appraiser.

arrow