logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.27 2016가합510025
하자보수금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 69,284,60 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from February 25, 2015 to May 27, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a party. 1) The Plaintiff is a total of 216 households and their ancillary facilities, including three A Apartments, in Yanananan-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) The defendant is a project proprietor who constructed and sold the apartment of this case.

B. On February 7, 2005, the apartment of this case had undergone a pre-use inspection on the apartment of this case. The Si Corporation did not construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing regarding the apartment of this case, or modified differently from the defective construction or design drawing and constructed the apartment of this case, a number of defects occurred over the section for common use and section for exclusive use. 2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair the defects from July 29, 2005 to several times during the period of five months after the date of the pre-use inspection of the apartment of this case.

C. On October 2, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. seeking damages in lieu of the defect repair acquired from the instant sectional owners pursuant to Article 9 of the Aggregate Buildings Act (hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”) around October 2, 2006, pursuant to Articles 46 and 59(3) of the Housing Act, as the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap85025, and as a preliminary lawsuit, seeking damages in lieu of the defect repair acquired from the instant sectional owners pursuant to Article 9 of the same Act.

(2) Of the instant apartment 216 households, the sectional owners of 202 households filed a claim for damages in lieu of defect repairs arising from the instant apartment from May 2007 to March 2008, and notified the Defendant thereof.

3. The above court rejected the plaintiff's primary argument and accepted part of the conjunctive claim, and on June 24, 2008, the defendant's 492,54,39 won and the defendant's 5% per annum from October 3, 2006 to June 24, 2008 and 20% per annum from June 25, 2008 to June 24, 2008.

arrow