logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.02.10 2016나2016519
하자보수금 청구
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid in the following manner shall be cancelled:

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is as follows: "The part of the current 1,454 unit of the present 1,470 unit of the apartment complex (hereinafter "household where the present 1,470 unit of the present 1,454 unit of the present 1,470 unit of the present 1,470 unit of the apartment complex ("the household where the present 1,454 unit of the present 1,45 unit of the present 1,45 unit of the present 1,470 unit of the complex of the present 1,470 unit of the complex of the present 1,470 unit of the complex of the present 1,454 unit of the complex of the present 1,45 unit of the reinforced floor of the court of first instance," and "the appraiser of this court" in the 4th 3 unit of the 4th unit of the court of first instance,

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's primary cause of claim (the plaintiff's claim for damages in lieu of repair of defects) occurred on the floor of reinforcement of the household to which the defendant executed. The defendant, the contractor, pursuant to Article 667 (2) of the Civil Code, bears liability for damages in lieu of the defect repair to the plaintiff who is the contractor. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of damages equivalent to KRW 4,373,330,456 (=2,719,923,776 (the total replacement cost of the reinforcement floor of this case) costs of replacement of the building of this case (2,719,923,776), and accommodation costs (1,653,406,560). 2) The defendant is obligated to perform the construction work of this case according to the construction plan, which is the content of the construction contract of the reinforcement floor of this case (Evidence No. 5) but has the duty to perform the construction work of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the non-performance due to the above incomplete performance.

arrow