logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.08.16 2014나2037277
하자보수보증금 등
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation expanded in the trial.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) changing the “Defendant CM Development” from among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance into the “CM Development”; and (b) changing the “Defendant’s Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation” into the “Defendant’s Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation”; and (c) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except the following dismissal or addition, are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of

2. 36,281,241,241,305,304,325,325,47,707,967,169,98,208,205,475,467,475,475,475,467,475,475,467,475,4757,465,4757,457,485,467,457,457,485,467,457,485,47,4657,457,49,4757,49,4757,49,4757,97,475,47,4757,965,47,475,475,47,97,57,57,475,47,257,49,257,47,47,4757,47,57,47,47

C) Of the sectional owners of the apartment of this case, the details of the cost of repairing defects for the part other than the sprinkr of the section for exclusive use by the household that did not transfer the damage liability in lieu of defect repair are as follows:

3. The details of the cost of repairing defects are identical to those indicated in the statement of the cost of repairing defects of the non-transferable portion of the household, the sum of which is KRW 9,903,118, and the cost of repairing defects of the sprinkler portion among the portion of the household that did not transfer the above damage claim is as indicated in the cost of repairing defects of the non-transferable portion of the bonds attached hereto 4.

From 10th to 11th of the decision of the first instance, the 10th to 17th of the decision is as follows.

2) The Plaintiff’s appraiser on the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion is indicated on the approval drawings on the slope of the instant apartment, but on the ground that the floor of the eke parking lot does not clearly state the terms of waterproof construction.

arrow