(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.08.16 2018나2065379

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 2019.08.16 2018나2065379

하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상 등 청구

Text

1. Each appeal filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and C Co., Ltd., the lawsuit taken over by Defendant B.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, the part of the judgment of the first instance is revised as follows, and the judgment of the first instance is added to the matters for which the plaintiff asserted from the first instance court, but which did not have any explicit judgment in the judgment of the first instance and the matters for which the defendants asserted again in the trial of the first instance.

[Revision] Of the table at the sixth bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, the term "pre-use part" shall be construed as "co-ownership part", and the term "co-ownership part" shall be construed as "pre-use part", respectively.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the apartment building of this case requires 5,842,055 won as defect repair costs (the items of “additional Public 1” in the result of the additional appraisal conducted on September 12, 2017 by the appraiser J of the first instance court) as to the defect repair costs (the 4,425,350 won, which is the limitation of liability recognized by the first instance court, are applied 94.98%, and 80%, which is the limitation of liability recognized by the first instance court, among the defect repair costs, 5,842,05 won, which is the whole area ratio of the transferred household of the transferred household of the transferred household of the above 5,842,05 won, and 5,848,783 won (hereinafter “the aforementioned claim for damages for delay”) from the first instance court to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the defect repair costs x 50% of the total area of the transferred household of the above 5,5,5450% of the claim for the aforementioned defect repair.

2) 2) The first instance court held that the marketing is a part of the printing.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.05.02 2017나2068531

-서울고등법원 2019.10.25 2019나2021543

-서울고등법원 2018.10.10 2017나2059933

-서울고등법원 2018.05.09 2017나2021716

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.21 2013가합80523