logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.08.24 2017나2054822
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Plaintiff claimed damages equivalent to the same amount against the Defendants on the ground that the flood accident of this case occurred due to a mistake in the management of the Defendant’s Korean Housing Facilities, and appropriated the amount of KRW 590,793,670 for the long-term repair appropriations and reserve funds, the Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful since the Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising with respect to the long-term repair appropriations and reserve funds belongs to the sectional owners of this case’s apartment complex, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages without obtaining the claim for damages from the sectional owners is unlawful, and that the instant lawsuit was filed five years after July 27, 2011, which was the date of the flood accident of this case’s occurrence or the date of the disbursement of recovery expenses, and the extinctive prescription has expired.

B. The issue of whether the Plaintiff acquired the claim for damages from the sectional owners of the apartment of this case or held the claim for damages for other reasons is relevant to the legitimacy of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, and the issue of the completion of extinctive prescription of the claim is a defense regarding the extinguishment of the right if the cause of the

This is only a matter on the merits, and it can not be a main defense on the requirements of the lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendants' main defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Korean Housing Facility Management, ① installed the 6 drainage pumps in the first mechanical room of the apartment of this case, and ② installed only the 4 drainage pumps that do not have, but also, installed in the previous collection and alteration. The 1st of the two drainage pumps installed in the existing collection and alteration.

arrow