(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.07.02 2018가합16327

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) 수원지방법원 2020.07.02 2018가합16327

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. On September 4, 2017, the Plaintiffs purchased a building (hereinafter “instant building”) of Suwon-gu D 624.5 square meters and the seven-story on which the said building is located (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On December 11, 2017, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant sales contract with respect to each of the 1/2 shares of the said land and buildings.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following defects are found in the building of this case alleged by the plaintiffs.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 580 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for the total amount of KRW 283,775,00 (=27,500,000 KRW 251,00,000).

1. Supplementary expenses incurred due to fire-fighting system costs: 27,500,000 won for parking lot repair costs: 251,000,000 won for the third rooftop waterproof construction cost: 9,445,000 won; and

B. Determination 1) Articles 580 and 575(1) of the Civil Act provide that “If there is any defect in the subject matter of sale, the buyer may claim damages.” Here, “defect” refers to a case where the subject matter of sale fails to satisfy the objective nature and performance that is expected in terms of transaction norms, or does not have the nature that either the party plans or guarantees (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da64315, Jul. 12, 2018). However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the subject matter of the instant sales contract does not have the objective nature and performance expected in terms of transaction norms, or that the subject matter of the instant sales contract did not have the nature that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant planned or guaranteed, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims based on the premise that there is "defect" as stipulated in Articles 580 and 575 (1) of the Civil Act in the building of this case are without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are groundless.

참조조문

-민법 제575조 제1항

-민법 제580조

참조판례

-대법원 2018.7.12.선고 2015다64315 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.02.11 2018나89893

-대법원 2021. 4. 8. 선고 2017다202050 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.27 2019나45625

-대법원 2018.07.12 2015다64315