logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.12.12 2016가합201537
손해배상 등 청구
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to Defendant Han forest Construction Co., Ltd, KRW 2,445,838,067 and KRW 1,000,000,000 among them, 2,445,838,067.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The status of the parties is an autonomous management body that consists of the occupants in order to manage the 1,045 households of the 23-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

Defendant Han Forestry Construction is a seller and contractor of the instant apartment complex, and Defendant Corporation (the Korea Housing Corporation was the Korea Housing Guarantee Corporation, but its trade name was changed as of July 1, 2015 pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda to the Housing and Urban Fund Act (Act No. 12989, Jan. 6, 2015), and both before and after the change (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Corporation”) is a guarantor who entered into a warranty contract for the instant apartment complex and issued a warranty bond.

On March 13, 2009, in the event that the defendant Corporation fails to perform the obligation to repair defects incurred in the apartment of this case on the part of March 13, 2009, the defendant Corporation entered into each contract for the repair of defects that the defendant Corporation shall pay the warranty bond within the warranty period and the guaranteed amount under the Sungnam City Mayor (hereinafter “each contract for the repair of defects of this case”) and the defendant Corporation issued each contract for the repair of defects from the defendant Corporation

After obtaining approval for use on March 27, 2009, the secured creditor of each of the instant warranty contracts was changed to the plaintiff as the Plaintiff, which was an autonomous management body of the instant apartment.

The sectional owners of the apartment of this case moved in from the time of the approval for use.

The occurrence of defects and the repair of the apartment building in this case did not construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing while constructing the apartment building in this case, or changed the part to be constructed differently from the design drawing, thereby causing a defect such as rupture and water leakage in the section for common use and section for exclusive use of the apartment in this case. Accordingly, the apartment building in this case.

arrow