beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 12,144,348 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 2, 2017 to October 26, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant B, etc.”) newly constructed and sold a multi-household neighborhood living facilities building (the instant building) on the ground of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the size of the first and third floors above the ground level, and Defendant G Co., Ltd (Defendant Co., Ltd) is the starting construction of the said building.
B. On March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B, etc. to purchase I (the instant real estate) among the instant buildings, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 18, 2016.
C. However, as of July 1, 2016 and July 2, 2017, in order to get a concentrated house, there was an accident that flows into the floor of the household room in the building due to rainwater flowing into the park without draining water.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. 1) In addition to the purport of the arguments and arguments as a result of the appraiser J’s appraisal of Gap evidence Nos. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), the design of the building of this case was designed to connect the design of the building of this case to the outdoor drain pipe of 100 meters in diameter. In fact, the construction of the building of this case was constructed to connect two excellent pipes of 75 meters in diameter of the rooftop to the interior pipe of this case where 75 meters in diameter of the roof are 3 stories. The construction of this modified unit was built to connect the building of this case to three stories in diameter because the defendant Eul et al., the owner of the building, was exposed to the outside, due to the anticipated aesthetic view and difficulty in selling them. However, the construction of the building of this case was conducted by the defendant company by accepting it, and the defendant company did not discharge the rainwater of this case to the third floor through the 3rd floor through the 3rd floor pipe.