logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.21 2013가합532314
하자보수보증금 등
Text

1. Of the lawsuit of this case, the plaintiff's 697,901,967 won and its corresponding amount against the defendant Yang Heavy Industries Ltd.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a party in the position of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is a party in the position of 627 households and ancillary facilities (hereinafter “instant apartment”) of 1600 Jin-si, Changwon-si, Gangwon-do, the Namwon-si, the Namwon-si, the Namwon-si, the

(2) For the efficient management and operation of the apartment in this case, the contractor of the new apartment in this case and the seller of the apartment in this case, and the defendant double Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant double Heavy Industries") is the contractor of the new apartment in this case, and the defendant double Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "the defendant double Heavy Industries") is the guarantor of the new apartment in this case who has contracted the construction of the apartment in this case with the defendant Lee Inhan, and the defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association is the guarantor who has entered into the warranty contract for the apartment in this case.

B. Defendant 2 Industries entered into a contract for the warranty of defects and usage inspection 1) with Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association as indicated below with respect to the new construction of the instant apartment as the prime market. On March 25, 2009, Defendant 2009, issued a contract for the warranty of defects with Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association and deposited it with the prime Mayor, which is the authority for usage inspection of the instant apartment. Serial number 120782, 140,149,8422220783, floor, local floor, April 15, 2009 to April 14, 2019; 207. 5. 14. 5. 207, 207, 209; 5. 140,49,49, 32074, 20784; 19. 4. 15. 209-14. 1984. 24. 2015

3. On April 7, 2009, Defendant Ehyhyhn had undergone a pre-use inspection on the apartment of this case, and around that time, the guarantee creditor of the instant guarantee contract was changed to the Plaintiff.

(c)a defect;

arrow