logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2018가합582581
하자보수보증금 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 91,239,133 as well as the annual amount of KRW 5% from November 30, 2018 to December 11, 2019, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Status 1 of the parties concerned) The Plaintiff is an apartment A in the Cheongsung City D (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

In order to manage 514 households, the Defendant is an autonomous management organization organized by occupants. 2) The Defendant’s Intervenor is a corporation that has completed the construction of the instant apartment after being awarded a contract for the new construction of the instant apartment. The Defendant guaranteed the obligation to repair the defects of the instant apartment.

B. A pre-use inspection and the occupancy apartment of this case had undergone the pre-use inspection on February 5, 2007, and around that time, they were delivered to the occupants.

C. On February 7, 2007, from February 5, 2007 to February 4, 2017, the Defendant joining the Defendant entered into a contract for the warranty of defects (hereinafter “the instant warranty contract”) with the Defendant as indicated below and issued the warranty insurance policy as to the instant apartment as to the Defendant and the Defendant’s Intervenor and the insured as the Defendant’s Intervenor, and the Defendant entered into the contract for the warranty of defects (hereinafter “the instant warranty contract”). The special clause of the warranty insurance policy states, “where the council of occupants’ representatives or the management body is organized, the rights of the insured are automatically succeeded to the council of occupants’ representatives or the management body.”

The Defendant’s Intervenor did not construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing, or constructed the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing, contrary to the drawing, or defective construction. As to the section for common use of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff continuously requested repair of defects to the Defendant’s Intervenor from May 2016, but still there remain defects such as the table of defect repair in the attached section for common use in the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant defect”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and appraiser F.

arrow