logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2017.06.22 2014가합4621
하자보수보증금등
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 669,079,732; and (b) from February 25, 2016 to June 22, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status 1 of the parties concerned) The Plaintiff is Daegu-gu A Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) The Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a construction company that constructed and sold the instant apartment, and the name of the Defendant Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation”) was changed from “Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation”) to “Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation”; hereinafter “Defendant B’s Guarantee Corporation”) is a guarantor who guarantees the repair obligation of the Plaintiff as seen below.

3) Defendant B’s assistant Intervenor C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Intervenor Intervenor”)

(B) As a landscape and construction specialized company, the subcontractor was awarded a subcontract for the part concerning landscaping and facility installation works among the new apartment construction works in this case from Defendant B. (B) Defendant B entered into a warranty contract with Defendant Guarantee Corporation on October 29, 2009 as to the apartment of this case with Defendant B and the guaranty creditor as the head of the Seogu Metropolitan City, Daegu Metropolitan City. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant warranty contract”).

The guarantee creditor was changed to the plaintiff.

The debt guarantee amount of the No. 1 D 1D 29, Oct. 29, 2009 to Oct. 28, 2010 to Oct. 28, 2010 to Oct. 29, 2009 to Oct. 21, 2074, 410 to Oct. 29, 201 to Oct. 28, 201 to Oct. 29, 201 to Oct. 29, 2009 to Oct. 781, 201, 611, 616 G 4 G 209 to Oct. 29, 2009 to Oct. 390, 208, 805, 807 won to Oct. 29, 2014 to Oct. 39, 205 to 308, 205;

C. The instant apartment, which was inspected on October 29, 2009, was approved for the usage inspection of the instant apartment, and the Defendant B failed to construct the part to be built according to the design drawing in the process of constructing the instant apartment, or changed differently from the defective construction or design drawing.

arrow