2015Na2793 Compensation (as referred to)

Park ○

Seoul Eunpyeong-gu Green 157 - 28

1. Maximum○○;

Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-dong 740 Scareman apartment

2. Prostitution ○○;

Seoul Yangcheon-gu 549 Festmbol apartment

3. Kim○-○.

Seoul Yangcheon-gu 1029 New Zealand 1, 1029

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Lee Gi-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013Da38773 Decided May 1, 2015

September 22, 2016

October 6, 2016

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 8,040,000, and Defendant ○○○ with respect thereto.

15. From October 12, 2013, Defendant Ma○○ pays 5% interest per annum from October 12, 2013 to October 6, 2016, and 20% interest per annum from October 26, 2013 to October 6, 2016.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendants jointly and severally filed with the plaintiff KRW 8,040,000 and the plaintiff

From June 17, 2013 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum and from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The amount calculated by 20% per annum is paid (the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim in the trial).

1. Facts of recognition;

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Claim for damages caused by deception

Considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 6, 7, 12-1 through 3, and Gap 25's testimony as witness of the court of first instance, the defendants were aware that the above ○○○ multi-household house (hereinafter "multi-household house of this case") was scheduled to be constructed adjacent to the above ○○○○ apartment house (hereinafter "multi-household house of this case") before entering into the above sales contract with the plaintiff at least before entering into the sales contract. In light of the location of the above 504, the number of floors of the structure and new building and the distance between the two buildings, the above new apartment building is likely to have a significant impact on view and lighting of the above 504 multi-household house of this case. Such circumstance is one of the important factors that the plaintiff considered in determining whether to purchase the above 504 multi-household house of this case. Thus, the defendants are obligated under the good faith principle to inform the plaintiff directly or through the delegated person of this fact. Thus, the defendants violated the above duty of notification.

In addition, according to the result of the appraisal commission for the appraisal of the appraiser No. 504 of this court, since the right to sunshine of the apartment house 504 of this case was infringed due to the construction of the said new building, and the damage was caused to decline in the value of KRW 2,940,00, the defendants shall jointly and severally pay the above money and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. According to the court’s appraisal commission of the appraiser of the case’s multi-household 504 multi-household 504, each of the instant multi-household 504 defects exists, and 5,100,000 won is required for defect repair costs.

Therefore, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff cannot claim the cost of repair of defects in the instant case since they received the warranty bond from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, and therefore, according to the statements in the evidence Nos. 5-1 and 2-2, the Defendants paid KRW 13,590,00 from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance for the repair of defects in the instant multi-household housing, and among them, paid KRW 675,40,000 from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance for the repair of defects in the instant multi-household housing. However, even though each of the above evidence alone is recognized to have been paid the said money for the repair of defects in the relevant portion, it is insufficient to recognize that the said money was paid for the repair of defects in the instant portion, which is recognized as above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Defendants

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally pay 5,100,000 won and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the value decline due to the infringement of the right to sunshine and multi-household 504, and the total amount of damages arising from the defects in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2653, Oct. 15, 2013); Defendant ○○, the following day after serving a complaint on the Defendants, shall be from October 15, 2013; Defendant ○○, from October 12, 2013; Defendant Kim○, from October 26, 2013 to October 6, 2016, the date the judgment of each court rendered that the Defendants raised an objection to the existence and scope of the Defendants’ obligation to perform, shall be 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and from the next day to the day of full payment (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26535, Sep. 25, 2015).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above amount in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the defendant shall be ordered to pay the amount, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin-ho

Judges Noh Jeong-man

Judges Song Jae-soo