logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.01.31 2017가합52967
하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상 등 청구
Text

1. The lawsuit against Defendant C is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is 440,035,490 won and 440 won.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous organization composed of 188 residents of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Execution Company”) is an executor who sold the instant apartment in lots, and Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C Co., Ltd”) directly constructed the instant apartment.

Meanwhile, the Defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Guarantee Corporation”) guaranteed the duty to repair defects after the inspection on the use of the instant apartment.

B. On April 11, 2014, the Defendant Execution Company entered into each of the instant contracts for the repair of defects (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”) with the Defendant Guarantee Corporation, as indicated below (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”).

The guaranteed amount for the guarantee period from April 18, 2014 to April 17, 2015, April 17, 2015, from April 17, 2015 to April 68, 58, 689,643, April 18, 2014 to April 17, 2016 to April 17, 17, 471, 474, 107, April 18, 2014 to April 18, 2017 to April 137, 17, 17, 179, 286, from April 18, 2014 to April 17, 2018 to April 102, 8, 84, 465 to April 16, 2018;

C. On April 22, 2014, the Defendant Execution Company, who had the usage inspection and defects of the instant apartment, was subject to a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment, and delivered each of the instant apartment units to the sectional owners around that time. As the Plaintiff, which was an autonomous management body of the instant apartment, constituted the Plaintiff, the guaranty creditor of each of the instant guarantee contracts,

Meanwhile, upon the occurrence of the defect in the apartment of this case, the plaintiff requested the defendants to repair the defect, and even though the defendants repair some of the defect, the apartment of this case still remains a defect such as the defect in the separate sheet in attached Table 1 and the defect in the separate sheet in attached Table 1. (hereinafter "the defect in this case").

The transfer of damage claim 1 is among the total 188 households of the apartment of this case.

arrow