(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.17 2015나2063815

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.17 2015나2063815

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision or addition as follows.

The fifth text of the judgment of the court of first instance “determination on the claim for damages in lieu of the defect repair” shall read “the scope thereof shall be KRW 556,356,217 of the judgment rendered by the plaintiff to the council of occupants’ representatives according to the judgment of the preceding lawsuit” to read “the scope thereof shall be KRW 556,356,217 of the judgment rendered by the plaintiff to the council of occupants’ representatives within the scope

The following shall be added to 7 pages 14 of the first instance judgment:

In relation to this case, the Plaintiff asserts that “The Defendant performed the obligation to repair the defects of the instant apartment by July 29, 2008, which constitutes the obligation to repair the defects under the contract for the Plaintiff, who is the contractor. Therefore, it is deemed that the Plaintiff exercised the right to repair the defects, and thus, it is deemed that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages in lieu of the defect repair of this case was not run or has been suspended upon the Defendant’s approval of the obligation. Accordingly, when calculating the extinctive prescription from July 29, 2013, when calculating the extinctive prescription from July 29, 2013, which was five years from July 29, 2008, the extinctive prescription has not been completed by the time of the instant lawsuit in the case of the right to claim the damages related to the defects, excluding the primary defect.” However, the Defendant’s assertion at the request of the council of occupants’ representatives or the sectional owners of the instant apartment does not seem to result

. By July 29, 2008, the duty of repairing defects was fulfilled.

Even if so, the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's right to claim damages in lieu of the defect repair in this case against the defendant does not run.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대법원 2009. 2. 12. 선고 2008다84229 판결

-대구지방법원 2019.04.25 2018나309079

-대법원 2000. 3. 10. 선고 99다55632 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.04.07 2015나2066319

-서울중앙지방법원 2018. 4. 4. 선고 2016가합534601 판결