beta
Text
1. As to KRW 143,828,966 and KRW 110,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 143,828,96, and KRW 33,828,96.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. (1) The Plaintiff is an autonomous management organization that consists of occupants for the management of the 346 generation of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government A apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(2) The Defendant is a company that guaranteed the duty to repair the defects of the instant apartment, which is a contractor of the instant apartment, in relation to Rac Construction (hereinafter “Rac Construction”).
B. (1) On May 7, 2010, rac construction entered into a contract for the sale of apartment units and the repair of defects of the instant apartment units (hereinafter referred to as rac construction), which had undergone a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment units from the Cheongnam-do mayor, Chungcheongnam-do, and around that time, occupied the buyers in the instant apartment.
(2) Between the Defendant and the Defendant on May 3, 2010, the Ray Construction entered into a contract with the guaranty creditor market, each guarantee period, and each guarantee amount as listed below (hereinafter “the guarantee amount per the instant apartment”). From May 4, 2010 to May 3, 140,502,000 to May 4, 201, 201 to May 3, 301 to May 3, 301, 140,502,003 to and from May 4, 2010 to May 3, 30, 201 to issued a guarantee contract with the Defendant on May 3, 2010 to May 3, 2010 to May 3, 30, 2013 to May 3, 200, 004 to May 4, 2015 to 14, 15, 2015 to 375.5, 2015
(3) The instant guarantee agreement states, as a special article, that “No guarantee shall be liable for any defect that occurred prior to the term of the guarantee, and the guarantee creditor shall be deemed to have changed to the said council of occupants’ representatives when organizing the council of occupants’ representatives under Article 60(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.
C. Due to the defective construction of radar construction, defects have occurred in the section for common use and section for exclusive use of the apartment in this case. Accordingly, the apartment in this case caused an obstacle to the function, safety, or aesthetic view.
From the beginning of the occupancy of the apartment of this case, the Rac Construction was requested by the plaintiff to repair the defects of the apartment of this case, but did not properly implement it.