logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.10 2017가합18625
하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상 청구
Text

1. The plaintiffs' respective lawsuits against defendant B are dismissed.

2. Defendant A Co., Ltd.:

A. Attached Form 3 Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the parties to the instant condominium (hereinafter “instant condominium”) comprised of six apartment-type factories located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon, and 1,512 housing rooms for the use of Class II neighborhood living facilities (162,182m28m2,000,000) (hereinafter “instant condominium”).

Of the Plaintiff’s list, the number of buyers or sectional owners who have succeeded to the number of units listed in the corresponding column of “Dong” and “Sho number” as indicated in the Plaintiff’s list is the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is the project implementer who has sold the instant aggregate building, and the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is the construction contractor who has been awarded a contract for the construction of the instant aggregate building from Defendant A.

B. (1) After Defendant B completed the new construction of the instant aggregate building, Defendant A obtained approval for use of the instant aggregate building on October 5, 2012, and thereafter the Plaintiffs’ entrance room began at that time. (2) However, as Defendant B did not construct a new construction of the instant aggregate building, or constructed a new construction of the instant aggregate building by modifying the design drawing differently from the defective construction or design drawing, the defects, such as rupture, water leakage, etc., in the instant aggregate building were caused to the section for common use and section for exclusive use of the instant aggregate building.

3) Accordingly, the owner of the instant aggregate building, including the Plaintiffs, requested the Defendants to repair the defects of the instant aggregate building from the date of entering the building immediately after entering the building, and the repair was made in the case of some defects. However, with respect to the section for common use of the instant aggregate building and the section for exclusive use of each of the defense rooms owned by the Plaintiffs, it is still a defect such as the defect repair expense aggregating table by item of defect in the attached section for common use and the defect repair expense aggregating by item

The remainder remains, and in order to repair it, it is after the crack of the outer wall.

arrow