logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.11 2015가합14759 (1)
하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상 등
Text

1. From June 26, 2015, 250,792,275 won among lawsuits against Defendant Cheong Mine Construction Co., Ltd. and its related thereto.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives consisting of the occupants in order to manage two 101 households, 100,000, 119,000,00-ro 66,00,00,00,00,000,00.

The defendant reconstruction association is a project proprietor who constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and on June 15, 2007, the defendant Chungcheong Construction is a company that executed the new construction of the apartment of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "contract of this case") by the defendant reconstruction association under contract.

B. As to the apartment of this case, Defendant Cheongung Construction and the instant apartment, the term “where Defendant Cheongung Construction has failed to perform the claims for the performance of the repair for defects arising from the design documents at the time of inspection of the use within the guarantee period” was a guarantee accident. In the event of a guarantee accident, Defendant Cheongung Construction Mutual Aid Association entered into each contract for the warranty liability (hereinafter “each guarantee contract of this case”) which requires the guarantee creditor to perform the obligation borne by Defendant Cheongung Construction on behalf of the guarantee creditor or to pay the pertinent warranty bond, and issued each of the warranty liability certificates as indicated below [Attachment 1] to Defendant Cheongung Construction

[Attachment 1] From June 15, 201 to June 14, 2011, the guarantee number of No. 2949, 79, 794, 100, 2948, 2948, 794, 100 until June 15, 2010 to June 14, 2012, second year from June 15, 201, 2947, 119,691, 150 until June 15, 2010 to June 14, 2012:

C. On September 6, 2010, Defendant Reconstruction Association had undergone a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment, and the status of guarantee creditor under each of the instant guarantees was succeeded to the Plaintiff, which is an autonomous management body of the instant apartment, constituted by the occupants located in the instant apartment after the date of the pre-use inspection.

Defendant.

arrow