beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant On-going Housing Reconstruction and Rearrangement Project Association KRW 965,148,705 and KRW 100,000,100 among them.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status of the parties is the autonomous management organization organized by the occupants in order to manage the 18, 99 households, and auxiliary facilities (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Guro-gu, 155, the Plaintiff is an implementer who constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and the Defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Construction”) is the company that executed the construction of the apartment of this case by being awarded a contract with the Defendant Association for the construction of the apartment of this case.
B. On September 23, 2009, the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) concluded a contract with the head of Guro-gu, which is a guarantee creditor, to pay a warranty bond within the scope of the period and amount indicated in the following table (hereinafter “each guarantee contract of this case”) in the event the construction defect occurred in the apartment of this case and the Defendant Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) and the apartment of this case did not perform the repair obligation upon receiving a request for repair even after the date of the inspection (except the non-construction part prior to the inspection of use or design defect). Since then, the guarantee creditor of each guarantee contract of this case was changed to the Plaintiff.
The security deposit for the guarantee period from October 5, 2009 to October 4, 2010 1,128,935,700 on October 5, 201 to October 5, 2011 3, 1,128,935,700 from October 5, 201 to October 5, 201, 4.693,403,550 on October 5, 201 to October 5, 2012.
C. On October 1, 2009, the apartment of this case, which had undergone a pre-use inspection of the apartment of this case. Defendant Hyundai Construction failed to construct the part to be built according to the design drawing regarding the apartment of this case, or differs from the defective construction or design drawing.