logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.14 2014나2050348
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including a claim modified at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous management body composed of representatives from each Dong to manage the 15-dong 15-dong 1,234 apartment units (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and Defendant B is a person who performed the Plaintiff’s representative office (two-year term of office) through five, six, and seven-party representative office (two-year term of office) from May 1, 2007 to April 30, 2013, and Defendant C is an attorney-at-law who accepted a lawsuit related to defects in the instant apartment.

In addition, Dong decoration Co., Ltd. is a seller who newly built and sold the apartment of this case, and the branch Es. Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “branch Es.”) is a construction contractor who entered into a construction contract for the new apartment of this case with the Dong decoration Co., Ltd. and constructed the said apartment.

B. Around September 20, 1999, the Construction Mutual Aid Association entered into a contract for the repair of defects as stated in the table Nos. 1 through 5 below with the guarantee creditor as a market to allow the guarantee creditor with respect to the apartment of this case, and thereafter, the guarantee creditor of the said guarantee contract was changed to the Plaintiff.

The warranty period of 1,424,657,980 2 E from August 28, 2002 to August 27, 2003, 1,424,657,980 2 E from August 28, 2002 to August 27, 2004, including site creation works, 1,424,657,980 3 F. 3 from August 28, 2002 to August 27, 2005, 2,136, 986, G. 9704 to August 27, 2005; 2,136, 970 to August 27, 2008; 1,208 to August 27, 2008;

C. The apartment of this case was inspected on August 28, 2002, and around that time, occupants occupied the apartment.

The same decoration and ZS Construction Co., Ltd. did not perform the construction according to the design drawings while performing the new construction of the apartment in this case, or constructed the apartment in this case, and a large number of defects occurred in the common area and the section for exclusive use of the apartment in this case.

arrow