2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts are recognized by each entry in Gap evidence 3 and 4 (including each number), unless there is a dispute between the parties or by the Parties:

○ The Defendant, as a project proprietor, newly built 1,23-dong 1,911 units of Hosung-dong 900 ground Hodong-dong 1,23-dong 1,91 among them, had undergone a pre-use inspection on June 30, 1997 with respect to the 101-dong 105-dong 105-dong 1,91-dong 1,23-dong 1,91 units, and leased the instant apartment as a long-term leased house pursuant to the Rental Housing Act, but leased the instant apartment as a long-term leased house on September 1, 2002.

After the apartment of this case was converted for sale in lots, the Plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives comprised of the sectional owners. The Plaintiff acquired the right to claim damages from some of the sectional owners of the apartment of this case due to the defect that occurred in the apartment of this case (the Plaintiff acquired the above right to claim from a household corresponding to 83.57% of the total household of this case based on the deposit area), and was also delegated the right to notify the assignment of the right to claim. Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the above assignment of claim throughout August 12, 2008, around January 20, 2009, and around June 7, 2010.

Article 9(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “the Aggregate Buildings Act”) provides that “The provisions of Articles 67 through 671 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the warranty liability of persons who have constructed and sold a building under Article 1 or 1-2, and Article 671(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The contractor of land, a building, or any other structure shall be liable for the warranty liability of persons who have sold the building.” However, where the object is made of stone, stone, brick, metal, or any other similar material, it shall be ten years.”

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

As the cause of the claim in this case, the defendant asserts that the owner of the apartment in this case has a duty to compensate for damages in lieu of defect repair in accordance with Article 9 of the Aggregate Buildings Act and the provisions of the Civil Act applicable mutatis mutandis thereto, and as the transferee of the right to claim damages, the defendant is claiming the payment of damages to the defendant.

3. Determination on this safety defense

In regard to this, the defendant has the right to claim damages against the defendant in lieu of defect repair, and the owner of each apartment of this case is not permitted to transfer the above claims to the plaintiff's council of occupants' representatives. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the lawsuit of this case, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

On the other hand, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff received the claim of this case from the sectional owner of the apartment in this case to the Defendant and filed the claim of this case as the assignee; (b) the process, method, timing, relationship between the transferor and the Plaintiff, which is the representative council of occupants’ representatives of the apartment in this case, and the validity of repair of defects; (c) the assignment of the claim to the Plaintiff by the sectional owner of the apartment in this case cannot be deemed as the principal purpose; and (d) the assignment of the claim to the Plaintiff by the owner of the apartment in this case is valid as it does not violate Article 7 of the Trust Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9539, May 28, 2009, etc.).

4. Determination on the cause of the claim

We examine whether the defendant bears the liability for damages in lieu of defect repair in accordance with the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings for the apartment owners in this case.

As seen above, Article 9 of the Multi-Family Building Act applies mutatis mutandis to the warranty liability of the person who constructed and sold a building to a contractor under the Civil Act with respect to the "liability of the person who constructed and sold the building". The above provision basically provides that when a building is newly constructed and sold, if the building is not constructed according to a contract or a defect occurs, the contractor is liable to the seller, and the seller is expected to newly construct and sell the building that is not defective in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. However, in the case of the apartment of this case, the apartment of this case, as seen above, the apartment of this case was newly constructed and constructed on June 1997 and leased after the use inspection was converted to the sectional owner around September 2002, it cannot be recognized as the buyer's legal status such as Article 9 of the Multi-Family Building Act, and therefore, Article 9 of the Multi-Family Building Act does not apply to the sectional owner of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case under the premise that the sectional owner who received the conversion of the building of this case has the right to pay warranty liability under Article 9 of the Aggregate Buildings Act and Article 671 (1) of the Civil Act which is applicable mutatis mutandis by it, is without merit to examine further.

5. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

Judges Hong-ho (Presiding Judge)