beta
Text
1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 2013, Plaintiff A supplied XL pipe (hereinafter “instant pipe”) manufactured by net D (trade name: J) to H (hereinafter “instant multi-family housing”) that performed air and hot water pipeline construction in the building among the new construction works of the fourth-story apartment housing (G; hereinafter “instant multi-family housing”).
B. H constructed the floor pipe facility of the instant pipe, and the instant apartment building was completed on or around December 2013.
C. On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 102 Dong 101 (hereinafter “101”), among the instant multi-family housing, and Plaintiff C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 102 Dong 402 (hereinafter “402”) among the instant multi-family housing on December 13, 2013.
On the other hand, around January 2016, "102 Dong 102 et al., 102 et al., of the instant multi-family housing."
(D) On January 2017, Plaintiff A issued reconstruction of the floor heating pipes of 102. However, around January 2017, Plaintiff C’s 402, and around March 2017, Plaintiff B’s 101 to 102. D. The deceased on January 22, 2018 during the instant lawsuit, and the Defendant solely succeeded to Plaintiff D. [The fact that there is no dispute over recognition, Party A’s 1 to 3, 6 through 8, and Party B’s 1], and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.
2. Due to the manufacturing defect of the pipe of this case manufactured by the Defendant’s assertion, water leakage occurred in 102, Plaintiff B, and C’s 101, and 402.
Accordingly, Plaintiff A suffered losses of KRW 8,735,80, which is equivalent to the cost of removing the pipe installed in 102 and rebuilding the pipe for heating purpose. Plaintiff B, which is equivalent to the cost of demolishing the pipe installed in 101 and then falling under KRW 15,165,00, which is equivalent to the cost of reconstruction, and Plaintiff C, which is equivalent to the cost of reconstructing the pipe constructed in 102, 14,95,000, which is equivalent to the cost of reconstruction.