logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.08.23 2017나2011771
하자보수보증금 등
Text

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of each of the above damages against the Defendant, in lieu of the defect repair damages against the Codefendant, Quasi-Housing Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Quasi-Housing Construction”) in lieu of the defect repair damages, in lieu of the construction in lieu of the quasi-Housing Construction in order to preserve the above damages claims, and the payment of the damages against the Codefendant, Codefendant, Ltd., Ltd., the first instance trial against the Codefendant, in lieu of the defect repair damages claim, to the Defendant.

While the court of first instance partially accepted each claim against the co-defendants of the first instance court and ordered the payment of damages in lieu of the 5 or 10th defect in the claim against the defendant, it rejected all the claims on the pre-use inspection and the 1 to 3th defect in the first instance court.

As to this, the Plaintiff appealed to the part against the Plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance, but at the first day of pleading of this court, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that the Plaintiff appealed only to the part concerning defects before the inspection of use among the judgment against the Defendant, and both the appeal against co-defendants of the court of first instance and the remaining appeal against the Defendant were withdrawn, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited

2. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is in the position of the parties 1) A apartment in the old city B (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case").

(2) In order to manage the 247 households, the Defendant was an autonomous management organization composed of its occupants. (2) The Defendant was a company that runs the construction business, housing construction business, etc. of the instant apartment from the quasi-interest construction that newly built and sold the instant apartment, and supplied and constructed the instant apartment construction (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The project approval, inspection of use, and defects related to the apartment of this case 1 is the apartment of this case.

arrow