logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.07.08 2018나2043492
하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상 등
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant B Co., Ltd. is 1,069,702,700 and its amount.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows, with the exception that the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and the Defendants’ grounds for appeal are added pursuant to paragraphs 2 through 4 below, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this part is cited in accordance with

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the arrival date of notification of the transfer of claims" with respect to six pages of notification of transfer "3" means " October 18, 2017" in the part "O. 16, 2017."

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part 9 and 10 of the 9 and 10 portion of the 9th 10th 'the provisions related to the warranty liability of the aggregate buildings currently in force' stipulated in the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggregate Buildings Act") related to the warranty liability of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings currently in force (However, the part of Article 9-2 (2) is prior to being amended by Act No.

C. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “judgment” as to “10-03 of the defective items of 13 pages” of the judgment of the court of first instance means “the sub-section of the Washington bend” of the 4rd parallel

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants

A. Since part of Defendant B’s assertion on this part of the exclusion period under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings is deemed to have been partially well-grounded, Article 9-2(b) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

B. Determination as to Defendant B’s exclusion period of exclusion and argument 1) Summary of the Claim 2-year defect of which the period of warranty liability under Article 9-2 of the Aggregate Buildings Act is two years (hereinafter “two-year defect”).

(3) the three-year defect (hereinafter referred to as “three-year defect”) with its entire and duration;

Of note, the notice of assignment of claims seems to be written in writing on October 18, 2017 (this is referred to as " October 16, 2017")."

) 222 households reached between March 6, 2018 (i.e., 99 households) were subject to exclusion period as to the portion on 11 households of 48 households (i.e., 49 households).

Therefore, the second defect of the section for common use is the same.

arrow