(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.12 2016나2041157

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) 서울고등법원 2017.05.12 2016나2041157

손해배상 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

A. Subsequent to the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the following is added.

"Freshing of the apartment of this case, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal, is installed at the lower part of the apartment of this case, and its floor is recognized as having been watched with the upper part of the market)"

B. From Nos. 7 to 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following facts are followed.

(4) [4] [14-4] The occurrence of water leakage from each household's living room, settling room, sprinking pipe (A) of each household of the apartment of this case caused a defect in which water leakage occurred in the living room and settling room sprinking pipe pipes of the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff requested the defendant to repair the defect. While the defendant carried out the defect repair on the water tank of the screen sprinking pipe and sprinking, the number of households where water leakage has occurred again due to repeated repair despite such defect repair, are not only the number of households where water leakage occurred, but also the continuous water leakage generation has continuously occurred. This method is not appropriate for defect repair because the water leakage has already occurred and can not be applied to the new pipe. Accordingly, in order to repair the sprinking pipe of this part, it is not necessary for the total 160 million won and the total 160 billion won and the total 160 billion won and the 166099 U.S. dollars of this case to repair the apartment of this case (hereinafter.).).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2019.01.23 2017나2064164

-청주지방법원 2018.11.15 2017가합202255

-서울고등법원 2018.10.26 2018나2020420

-부산지방법원 2015.08.21 2014나14563

-서울고등법원 2018.08.31 2017나2047688