logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.16 2015나9051
하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the defendant among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the term “Defendant B Company” is deemed to read “B Company”, “Defendant Ireland Construction” to read “Co., Ltd. Construction”, “Defendant B” to read “B”, “Defendant Ireland” to read “Iland”, “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Co., Ltd.” and “Defendant Seoul Guarantee” to read “Defendant” and “Experts” to read “Experts of the first instance trial.”

B. We add “95,698,938” to the third column of the part for public use among the defects in this case’s Schedule 6th [the subsequent defect in this case’s Schedule 3] and dismiss “582,24,276” to “67,943,214” in the total column for public use.

(c)the second sentence “309,245,321 won” in the second sentence of the first instance judgment is “309,248,276 won”;

Article 46(2) of the Housing Act, which provides for the deposit obligation of the warranty bond, is a mandatory provision, and Article 6(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides for the deposit obligation of the warranty bond of this case as the contract contract of this case as the contract price of each guarantee insurance contract of this case, and Article 60(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides for the amount 106,280,000,000 won excluding the price before the creation of the site or the price of the site from the total project cost as stipulated in Article 60(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.

According to the above evidence, the contract of this case is a contract for construction work.

arrow