logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.06.28 2017다249479
하자보수에 갈음하는 손해배상 등
Text

All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal are assessed against Defendant New Security Construction Industry.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A claim for repair of defects and a claim for damages in lieu of repair of defects under Article 9 of the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 11555, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former Aggregate Buildings Act”), and a claim for damages arising from the occurrence of defects under Article 46 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 4 of the Addenda to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (Act No. 11555, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former Housing Act”) may be independently exercised.

However, the proviso of Article 6 of the Addenda to the former Aggregate Building Act (amended by April 10, 1984) provides that "the provisions of Article 46 of the Housing Act shall apply to the warranty liability and the repair of defects of the apartment house", and Article 46 of the former Housing Act recognizes the warranty liability only when any defects prescribed by Presidential Decree occur within the warranty period prescribed by Presidential Decree from the date of usage inspection or approval of use of the apartment house (hereinafter referred to as the "use inspection date") to the date of usage inspection or use approval of the apartment house. Thus, with respect to defects prescribed in Article 46 of the former Housing Act, a claim for damages in lieu of defect repair pursuant to Article 9 of the former Aggregate Building Act may be filed only when such defects occur within the warranty warranty period prescribed by Presidential Decree, and without limitation on the warranty liability period prescribed by Presidential Decree, for defects such as defects that occurred prior to the date of usage inspection prescribed in Article 46 of the former Housing Act

(2) On July 12, 2012, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, did not perform liquid waterproof works related to the waterproof construction of the parking lot floor, the balcony floor waterproof construction, and the bathing room floor waterproof construction, or mistakenly executed, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

arrow