(영문) 대구고등법원 2015.10.29 2013나4921 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구고등법원 2015.10.29 2013나4921

하자보수보증금 등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a party. 1) The plaintiff is a party with a total of 276 households, a total of 5-dong A apartment units on the land, other than Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si.

In order to manage the apartment house, the council of occupants' representatives is the council of occupants' representatives, which is composed of the occupants. 2) The defendant is the project undertaker who newly constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and the construction of luices (the construction before the modification) is the contractor who newly built the apartment

B. 1) The occurrence of defects and the claim for repair of the apartment of this case (1) the construction of the apartment of this case did not construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing while constructing the apartment of this case, or constructed the apartment of this case with defective construction, or changed the design drawing differently from the design drawing, thereby causing defects such as rupture and water leakage to the section for common use and the section for exclusive use of the apartment of this case. (2) The Plaintiff continuously demanded repair of defects on several occasions at the request of the occupants

3) The cost of repairing defects still remains in the apartment of this case due to the failure to perform the duty of repairing defects as shown in the attached Table 1. The aggregate of the cost of repairing the defects is as listed below. The cost of repairing the defects are as follows: 15,960,000,000, 103,290,290,82524,260,9301,006,006,006,008,51,874,874,316,25,938,930,000,000,000, 124, 260, 260, 301, 207, 106, 874, 316, 25, 938, 1608, 1608, 737, 1965, 1965, 168, 2965, 16365, 1965

C. On April 2012, the Plaintiff transferred its claim to the Plaintiff. On or around 2012, 274 households among the total sectional owners of the instant apartment units 276 households (hereinafter “mortgage transfer household”).

[Attachment A apartment transferor’s list” (hereinafter “transferor’s list”) from the sectional owners.

The apartment of this case is recorded.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.08.23 2016나2006994

-대전고등법원 2020.01.15 2018나11884

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.12.11 2013가합203273

-서울고등법원 2015.06.03 2014나5472