(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.07 2014가합559590

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.07 2014가합559590

하자보수보증금 등 청구의 소

Text

1. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd. is as follows 2. A.

part exceeding the money set forth in subsection (1).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status 1 of the parties concerned) The Plaintiff is the Guri-si A apartment (7 Dong Dong Dong 299, hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) A regional housing association is a project proprietor that constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and the Defendant Gold Industry is a contractor that performed the construction work of the apartment of this case after being awarded a contract with the said association for the construction work of this case.

B. On September 24, 2010, the instant apartment association obtained approval for the use of the apartment.

C. From September 24, 2010 to September 23, 2011, including the cost of construction covered by the contract for the repair of defects, the guarantee creditor of the same amount as KRW 419,701,725 from September 24, 201 to September 23, 201, including the cost of construction for the repair of defects and the cost of construction for the repair of defects and the cost of construction for the repair of defects of KRW 335,761,380 from September 24, 201 to September 23, 201, and the cost of construction for the repair of defects of KRW 419,701,70 from September 24, 201 to September 23, 201 to September 24, 201 to September 25, 201 to September 23, 2015; and the cost of the repair of defects of KRW 380 from September 24, 2010 to September 23, 2019

(2) As the Plaintiff, an autonomous management body of the instant apartment, the secured creditor of the instant warranty contract, was changed to the Plaintiff.

When constructing the apartment of this case, the Defendant Geum-ho industry constructed the apartment of this case, and did not construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing, or modified, constructed, or performed defective construction differently from the design drawing. As a result, there were defects such as external walls, internal rupture, water leakage, etc. on the section for exclusive use and common use of the apartment of this case.

The plaintiff shall conduct a pre-use inspection at the request of occupants or sectional owners.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.13 2014가합2234 (1)

-서울고등법원 2015.12.01 2015나2027772

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2013가합61751

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.19 2014가합593859

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.27 2014가합61369