[2] Criteria to determine whether a defect occurred in a new building

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence or fact-finding, which belongs to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the lower court’s decision in light of the records, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

The appraiser’s appraisal result shall be respected unless the appraisal method is against the rule of experience or unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da103199, Jan. 24, 2013, etc.).

On the other hand, whether a defect occurred in a newly constructed building shall be determined based on the final final final and conclusive drawings through a design modification by the express or implied agreement between the contractor and the project owner, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the contractor would modify the design documents at will without the consent of the project owner or the project supervisor, even though the construction executor does not comply with the Building Act, an order or disposition under the aforesaid Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, or if

The court below accepted the results of the appraisal of the non-party of the first instance trial referring to the completion drawing, etc. of the new building of this case, and calculated the repair cost of the building of this case, the repair cost of the defects in the interior works of this case, and the construction cost of the non-party. In light of the records, the court below's finding of facts and finding of facts is acceptable. There is no violation of the law of logic and experience, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 6

This part of the ground of appeal is erroneous in the court below's finding that there was error in the fact-finding that is the basis for calculating the cost of repair of defects and the non-execution of the construction work of this case, and the result of appraisal by the non-party of the first instance trial, which is the fact-finding court. This part of the judgment below is hard to be viewed as a legitimate ground of appeal unless it goes beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence because it is merely disputing the selection of evidence and the fact-finding belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of first instance. In light of the records, even if the judgment of the court below is examined in light of the records, it is just to find the fact-finding that the court below recognized the fact-finding of the construction work of this case and the non-execution of the non-execution of the non-party of the first instance trial as shown in the attached Tables 1 and 3 at the time of original adjudication.

C. As to ground of appeal No. 7

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the decision of the court below that rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff cannot pay the unpaid construction cost because it was not covered by the warranty insurance, is just in its conclusion, and there is no violation of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)