logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.07 2013가합504197
손해배상(건)
Text

The Plaintiff

A. As to Defendant Won Construction Co., Ltd, KRW 1,306,524,38 and KRW 1,252,890,320 among them.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a party 1) The plaintiff is a A apartment on the ground B in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

(2) The Defendant Company is a business proprietor who constructed and sold the instant apartment, and the Defendant Guarantee Corporation guarantees the obligation to repair the defects of the Defendant Company with respect to the instant apartment.

B. The Defendant Company entered into a warranty contract with the Defendant Guarantee Corporation to enter into each of the warranty contracts (hereinafter “each of the warranty contracts of this case”) on the apartment of this case as indicated below, and was issued by the Defendant Guarantee Corporation.

Since then, the guarantee creditor of each guarantee contract of this case was changed to the plaintiff.

The warranty period (the warranty period) C 1 C from December 30, 201 to December 29, 2011, 209,273,7002 D 2D 609,273,700 to December 29, 2012 (2nd year) 30,273,700 E 3 E from December 30, 2010 to December 30, 2013, 910, 5454 F 4F from December 30 to December 29, 2013 (3nd year) 913,910, 5, 95, 305, 195, 205 to 305, 205, 205, 305, 205, 205, 305, 205, 205, 2015.

C. On December 30, 2010, the instant apartment was inspected on and after December 30, 2010. The Defendant Company failed to construct the instant apartment in accordance with the design drawings, or modified the construction differently from the defective construction or design drawings, and thus, multiple defects occurred in the instant apartment through the section for common use and the section for exclusive use. (2) As from December 5, 201, the Plaintiff requested repair of defects to the Defendant Company at the request of the occupants or sectional owners of the instant apartment from December 5, 201, and the Defendant Company continued to repair and construct some defects. However, the instant apartment was intended to repair and construct the instant apartment.

arrow