logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.12.07 2015가합32981
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's rehabilitation company, the legal administrator A of the defendant rehabilitation company and building company, shall be the rehabilitation company.

Reasons

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocheon-gu 39 (U.S. children, Songcheon-gu Hacheon-gu) 376 units of Songcheon-dong 376 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

The redevelopment project association for the district-1 housing redevelopment project (hereinafter referred to as the "development project association of this case") is a project proprietor who constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and the construction of the defendant Dongbu is a construction project contractor who constructed the apartment of this case under a contract with the redevelopment project association of this case for the new construction project of this case.

The defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation (the former Korea Housing Guarantee Corporation; hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Guarantee Corporation") is a person who guarantees the obligation to repair the defects of the apartment in this case of the defendant Dongbu Construction.

In the event that the construction of the defendant Dong Branch, which entered into a contract for the repair of defects and approved for the use thereof, has the guarantee creditor as the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the construction of the defendant Dong Branch, fails to perform without justifiable grounds even after receiving a claim for the repair of defects that occurred within the warranty period after having undergone a pre-use inspection of the new construction of the apartment in this case, the defendant Dong Branch entered into each contract for the repair of defects (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "each guarantee contract of this case") as shown in the following table with the guarantee creditor, and the defendant Dong Branch entered into each contract for the repair of defects (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "each guarantee contract of this case") as stated in the

Serial Nos. 1 0128201-201-0008201, Sept. 13, 2010 to Sept. 12, 2011; 675; 8642, Sept. 13, 2010 to Sept. 13, 2012; 44, 189; 603, 603, 012820-2010-208; 2016. 208. 205. 208. 205. 208. 205. 208. 205. 16. 205. 16. 205. 205. 205. 206. 16. 205. 205. 205. 208. 35, 2010 to 351, 2012- 2010

arrow