logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.10.17 2018가합52308
하자보수보증금 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) from April 3, 2018 to October 17, 2019, as well as KRW 78,853,190.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is an apartment building A located in the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City E (hereinafter “instant apartment building”).

(2) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (trade name before the merger: C and the trade name before the change: F Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant implementer”) is an executor who sold the instant apartment, and Defendant D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) is a contractor who directly constructed the instant apartment.

3) Defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Guarantee Corporation”)

B. On December 22, 2016, the Defendant probationary Corporation guaranteed the obligation to repair defects after the inspection on the use of the instant apartment. The Defendant probationary Corporation, which entered into the defect warranty contract, guaranteed the respective warranty contract (hereinafter “each warranty contract of this case”) as indicated below with the Defendant Security Company.

The term “guarantee” was concluded. The period of guarantee (from January 10, 2017 to January 10, 2019 to January 10, 2019; 61,258, 463; and 2nd January 10, 2017 to January 163, 2010 to January 1635, 200; 9013th January 10 to January 10, 2017; 02,097, 4385th May 4, 2017 to October 10, 2017; 81,67, 950th October 10, 202 to October 10 to 201, 202;

C. Around January 31, 2017, Defendant Execution Company received a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment and delivered each of the instant apartment units to the sectional owners around that time. Around that time, the Plaintiff, which was an autonomous management body of the instant apartment, constituted the Plaintiff, and the guarantee creditor of each of the instant apartment units, changed to the Plaintiff. 2) Meanwhile, when the instant apartment units occurred, the Plaintiff requested the Defendants to request for the repair of the defects. While the Defendants repair some of the defects, the instant apartment units still remain defective (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant defect”).

Attacheds 1 and 2 above:

3. Determination in the paragraph.

arrow