beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to Defendant Effective Investment Development Co., Ltd, the amount of KRW 450,127,373 and KRW 101,00,000 among them.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) The Plaintiff is the party to the dispute. The Plaintiff is an apartment complex of approximately 1 Simzymar 1, which is located in 3280, according to the Daegu Suwon-gu Franchisium punishment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(2) Defendant Effective Investment Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Effective Investment Development”) is a project proprietor of the instant apartment construction project, who constructed and sold the instant apartment. Defendant Effective Investment Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Effective”) is a contractor of the instant apartment construction, and Defendant Effective Investment Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Effective”) is a contractor of the instant apartment construction, and Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd”) guarantees the repair of the instant apartment.
B. On June 9, 2008, Defendant 1 entered into a contract for the repair of defects with the following guarantee obligations for the repair of defects in the apartment of this case as to the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance and the Defendant Filialty (hereinafter “instant contract for the repair of defects”) : (a) the warranty period of June 20, 208 to June 335, 2009 to June 19, 2009; (b) 204, 202 to June 20, 208 to June 335, 205 to June 335, 204; (c) 204 to June 19, 2010 to June 335, 204; (d) 203 to June 20, 208 to June 19, 2008 to June 19, 19, 2011 to June 303, 2018 to 306.
(2) On June 20, 2008, the Defendant’s effectiveness had undergone a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment, and around that time, each of the relevant households of the instant apartment was delivered to the sectional owners, and thereafter, as the Plaintiff, which is an autonomous management body of the instant apartment, was constituted, the guarantee creditor of the instant guarantee contract was changed to the Plaintiff.
C. The defect occurrence and defect repair cost of the apartment of this case did not construct the part to be built in the new construction of the apartment of this case, or the alteration of the design drawing differently from the design drawing.
2.3.