beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,056,929 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from May 17, 2013 to April 8, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a party to the dispute. The Plaintiff is an Ampha tower apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in 125, Yaak-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si.
In order to manage the five units, 270 households, and their ancillary and welfare facilities, the Intervenor joining the Defendant is a company that constructed and sold the instant apartment under the Housing Act. 2) The Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant are as follows.
As stated in paragraph (1), the construction guarantee agency that entered into the warranty contract for the apartment of this case is the construction guarantee agency.
B. On October 31, 2003, when the Defendant and the Defendant’s Intervenor did not perform the obligation to repair the defects that occurred in the instant apartment on October 31, 2003, the Defendant’s and the Defendant’s Intervenor entered into a contract to pay the guaranty creditor a warranty bond within the scope of the period and amount indicated below (hereinafter “instant contract for the warranty of defects”).
After November 10, 2003 to November 9, 2004, KRW 372,385,200 from November 10, 2004 to November 9, 2004, KRW 65784, KRW 372,385,200 from November 10 to September 9, 2005, KRW 6579 to November 10, 2003, KRW 65779 to November 5, 2006, KRW 6577,80 to KRW 6574,80 from November 10 to September 9, 2006, Plaintiff 10 to KRW 6578,90, KRW 6574,90 from November 278, 2008, KRW 650 to KRW 1981, Oct. 10, 201, Plaintiff 206 to 30.198
C. The Defendant joining the Defendant did not construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing in the construction of the apartment of this case, or modified the construction or defective construction differently from the design drawing. Accordingly, there was a defect such as the outer wall, internal rupture, water leakage, etc. in the section for common use of the apartment of this case. The Plaintiff did not construct the apartment of this case.