beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the parts added or used by addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is accepted pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. At the bottom of the third part of the mix, the 10th “Supplementary Intervenor” in Part 10 is added to the following “the Intervenor” (hereinafter referred to as “the Intervenor”).
Under Chapter 5, in the case of a performance lawsuit, the plaintiff added the "in the case of a performance lawsuit," and the plaintiff is the assignee of the damage claim in lieu of the repair of defects in the above apartment from the owner of the apartment in this case and exercises not only the damage claim, but also the transferee of the above apartment."
The marks of pages 7-10 are as follows:
As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the gist of the claim for the defect item (public 9) is confirmed as a result of a change or pollution caused by the indoor floor fluorial phenomenon of the apartment site, the defect is found. The result of a re-inspection (the first appraisal report dated June 2, 2017) that was excluded from the defect due to the lack of any change or pollution at the time of the initial investigation, and the calculation of KRW 897,061 (the supplementary appraisal report to the Plaintiff dated December 28, 2017) (the copy) [the supplementary appraisal report to the Plaintiff)] of the results of the re-inspection of the fact that there was a change in the indoor floor fluorial site of the apartment site. However, although there was no particular discovery of change or contamination at the time of the initial field investigation, even if this part of the defect was found to fall under the second-year defect, even if this part of the defect was found to fall under the second-year defect, it cannot be readily concluded that the defect was completed after the first re-inspection.