beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9 (including each number, if any, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply):
A. The relationship between the parties 1) The Plaintiff is the 14-dong 1,106 apartment complexes of 5-dong, 14-dong, 106 (hereinafter “instant apartment complex”) in Gwangju Mine-dong, 769-1.
(2) On September 18, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a litigation delegation contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant as the legal representative, filed a lawsuit against the Korea Land & Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land and Housing Corporation”) that is a business proprietor who constructed and sold the instant apartment on July 6, 2004, which was a business proprietor who built and sold the instant apartment, claiming compensation for damages in lieu of defect repair.
(hereinafter referred to as “related case”). (b)
1) On April 2007, the first instance court (Seoul District Court 2004Gahap3853), which first filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as the plaintiff in the related case, and the Supreme Court rendered a decision that "the owner of an apartment building who is not the council of occupants' representatives has the right to claim damages in lieu of defect repairs against the project owner" that "the owner of the apartment building who is not the council of occupants' representatives has the right to claim damages in lieu of defect repairs" requested the plaintiff to acquire the right to claim damages
B. Around November 2007, the Plaintiff acquired a claim for damages in lieu of defect repairs from 1,010.5 households among the total 1,106 households of the apartment of this case. Around that time, the Plaintiff notified the Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the transfer of the claim. Around December 11, 2007, the Plaintiff sent a claim transfer contract and the notice of the transfer of the claim to the Defendant. The Defendant, on March 19, 2008, did not affix a seal impression.