(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.06.17 2013가단40796

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.06.17 2013가단40796

보험금지급청구권부존재확인 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant for the instant apartment complex (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment complex”) of KRW 523,90,000 in the cost of the construction of the instant apartment complex (an increase in KRW 387,66,00 at the beginning of 387,66,00) and completed the instant other construction on June 22, 2012.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance policy with the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. for the performance of the obligation to repair the defects in accordance with the Tail Construction, as well as an insurance policy with the amount of KRW 15,717,00,00 for the Defendant’s performance (defect), and submitted the instant guaranty insurance policy to the Defendant on July 17, 2012.

C. On February 28, 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff for the repair of defects in the instant other work, along with the list of acceptance of defects by each household. However, on October 7, 2013, the Defendant claimed payment of KRW 37,238,40,00, including the remainder of KRW 21,521,40,00 in the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., which did not comply with the request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, and 8 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had re-built the defect part of the instant lock construction that the Defendant asserted as one-lane immediately after the completion of the instant lock construction over three days.

In addition, the part concerning the plaintiff's construction among the parts concerning the two-lane defects claimed by the defendant in two months after the completion of the first defect repair was reconstructed.

(However, among the two-lane defects alleged by the Defendant, the parts of the other cream caused by the crack of the toilet retaining wall and the parts concerning the repair of the toilet sirens are not defects caused by the Plaintiff’s construction, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff does not have the obligation to repair the defects related to the works in question to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, it is not possible.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2017.01.17 2016가단8892

-인천지방법원 2019.10.17 2018가단27286

-부산지방법원 2018.08.23 2016가단35754

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.16 2018가합514717

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.12 2016가단5276200