beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to Defendant Barun Construction Co., Ltd, KRW 2,817,00,000 and its amount from July 7, 2011 to September 8, 2011.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous management organization that consists of occupants for the management of the 25-dong, Geum-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant apartment”) 25-dong, 1728 households (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(2) Defendant Lot Construction Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Lot Construction”) is a business proprietor who directly constructed the instant apartment and sells it jointly with C Reconstruction Association.
(3) Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) guarantees the duty to repair the defects of the apartment of this case as follows:
B. On January 25, 2006, Defendant Barun Construction entered into each of the instant apartment contracts with Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. with the head of the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, which is the authority for usage inspection, as the guarantee creditor, to enter into each of the following warranty contracts (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant warranty contracts,” including the entire warranty contract as described below, and individually, in order of the order of each of the following (hereinafter referred to as “the instant warranty contract”).
(Then, the secured creditor of each of the instant contracts was changed to the Plaintiff). Meanwhile, the instant apartment was approved on February 10, 2006.
The Guarantee No. 1 D 1 D 1D 206 from February 10, 2006 to February 9, 2007 (1 year) 1,216,481,694 E 2 E from February 10, 2006 to February 9, 2008 (2 years) 1,216,481,6943 F 1,824,72,542,542 4,257,685,930 / [1]
C. Defendant Barun Construction, such as the occurrence of defects, failed to construct the apartment of this case in accordance with the design drawing or constructed the apartment of this case by changing the same differently from the defective construction or design drawing.
Therefore, there were defects such as building outer walls, internal heat, water leakage, and water quality in the section for common use and section for exclusive use of the apartment of this case.
The sectional owners and the plaintiff of the apartment of this case have taken occupancy.