logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.23 2014가합26045
하자보수에 갈음한 손해배상 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit on the effectiveness of the defendant corporation shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant Tae-chul Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;

A. The Plaintiff is an autonomous management body consisting of the representatives elected by the occupants of the Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, 183 apartment complex and officetel 422 Dong-dong 422 apartment units and officetels (i.e., apartment 298 household officetels 124 households; hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant apartment”).

Defendant Thai is a person who constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and Defendant Thai is a contractor who entered into a contract with Defendant Thai and entered into a new construction project for the apartment of this case.

B. The approval date for use of the apartment of this case is October 27, 2006.

C. As to the construction of the instant apartment, the Defendant’s efficacy did not construct the part to be built in accordance with the design drawing, or changed the part to be constructed differently from the design drawing, and thereby, it caused an obstacle to the function, aesthetic view, or safety of the instant apartment.

Although the Plaintiff requested the repair of defects to Defendant Fili-sung and partially repaired the repair work, the apartment of this case remains a defect in the section for common use and section for exclusive use (hereinafter “instant defect”).

On October 25, 2006, Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. entered into a contract for the warranty of defects on the apartment of this case (hereinafter “instant warranty contract”) and issued the performance guaranty insurance policy with Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the insured as follows.

After the establishment of the Plaintiff, the autonomous management body of the apartment of this case, the insured of this case was changed to the Plaintiff.

E. The plaintiff is from the sectional owners of 229.43 households among the total 422 households of the apartment of this case (where only some co-owners are transferred, the households listed in the table of defect repair expense of the household transferring the attached Form 2 shall be calculated according to their shares.).

arrow