logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.11.13 2018가합75538
손해배상(기)
Text

1. As to KRW 687,972,355 among the Plaintiff and KRW 500,00,000 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall from October 16, 2018 to November 13, 2020.

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. On August 6, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) on the part of the Defendant (the Defendant and the Defendant’s Intervenor, etc. constituted a joint contractor); and (b) on the part of the Plaintiff’s hotel D’s hotel in Gangwon-do (hereinafter “the instant hotel”) (hereinafter “the instant hotel”) and E formation work, the construction cost of KRW 126,236,00,000 for the instant construction work; and (c) from August 17, 2009 to February 16, 201 for the construction period of KRW 1 to 10 years for the warranty period (the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the State Contract Act”).

) Each contract for construction (hereinafter “the instant contract for construction”) was concluded with each of the instant contract for construction (hereinafter “the meaning of Article 70”).

B. Details related to the repair of defects among the general conditions of the construction contract applicable to the instant construction contract are as shown in attached Form 1.

C. The Defendant continued the instant construction from August 17, 2009 to July 201, and obtained approval for the use of the instant hotel on July 22, 201.

From May 22, 2012, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair defects arising in the hotel of this case several times.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), appraiser F's appraisal result, each of the defects of this case and its repair costs

A. Comprehensively taking account of the defective contents and the repair cost of Gap's 3, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 23 and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the appraisal by appraiser F, ① various defects have occurred due to poor execution of waterproof construction, etc. in the hotel in this case, ② thereby causing interference with the beauty and function of the hotel in the above hotel; ③ the plaintiff continuously requested the defendant to repair the defects arising from the above hotel from May 22, 2012, after the date of approval for the use of the hotel; however, the guest room of the above hotel still belongs to the poor factors around the floor and the wall-proof layer of the board.

arrow