beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 364,102,478; and (b) from July 22, 2017 to May 31, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Status 1 of the parties concerned) The Plaintiff is the formernam-gun A Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(2) Defendant B is an executor who constructed and sold the instant apartment building for the management of 172 households, and the Defendant B is a contractor who entered into a contract with Defendant B for the new construction of the instant apartment from Defendant B, and the Defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation [the name of the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation under Article 4 of the Addenda to the Housing and Urban Fund Act (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) was changed to the name of the Korea Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation; hereinafter “Defendant Corporation, regardless of whether it was before or after the change of the name; hereinafter “the name”) is a guarantor who entered into a warranty contract with the Defendant.
B. On October 20, 2014, the Defendant’s Intervenor entered into and completed a warranty contract for the construction of the instant apartment as indicated below (hereinafter “each of the instant warranty contracts”) with the Defendant Corporation and the Jeonnam-do Gun as the guarantee creditor.
(1) After the Plaintiff, an autonomous management organization of the instant apartment, was organized, the guaranty creditor of each of the instant guarantee contracts, was changed to the Plaintiff. The guaranty creditor of the instant apartment, on October 20, 2014, on October 19, 2015, on October 20, 2014, on October 20, 2014; - Defendant 149,250,000 on October 19, 2016, on October 20, 2019 (the second year), on October 20, 2014, on October 20, 2015, on October 20, 2014; 119,40,40,0000, on October 19, 2015 (the second year), on October 19, 2017, on May 10, 2015 (the second year) obtained the approval for use from Defendant 10,509, May 19, 2019, 205.
C. The defects of the apartment in this case occurred after the occupancy of the apartment in this case started, and there was a rupture, water leakage, etc., and the plaintiff.