(a) Requirements for holding warranty liability under the contract;

B. The case that reversed the judgment of the court below on the ground that the incomplete hearing or insufficient reasons were found.

(a) In order to ask the contractor for the warranty against defects in the contract, that is, the cause of the defect of the building, that is, whether the defect resulted from a defect in the construction material or construction, or from a breach of the contract, and the scope of the defect;

B. The case that reversed the judgment of the court below on the ground that the incomplete hearing or insufficient reasons were found.

A. Article 667 of the Civil Act / Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na891 delivered on February 26, 1987

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

In its reasoning, the lower court determined the facts as indicated in its reasoning concerning the reasons why the Plaintiff completed the construction of the building of this case by being awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of the building of this case, and, as such, the Plaintiff’s defense that the damages claim equivalent to the repair cost and the remainder payment claim of the building of this case would be offset on an equal amount due to the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the construction, shall be comprehensively taken into account the evidence adopted by the Defendant. After the completion of the construction of the building of this case, the construction of the underground floor waterproof work of this case was pointed out by an administrative authority and approved the provisional use of the building, and the completion inspection was delayed. At the time of the completion of the construction inspection, the completion inspection was conducted due to the temporary phenomenon in the same season, but the number of the parts under the underground room was continued to be the Plaintiff’s non-performance. The Plaintiff’s construction work of this case was conducted by preventing water leakage even after the execution of the construction work of this case, and by preventing water leakage from spreading to the building of this case from spreading to the underground walls of this case, the Plaintiff’s fault of this case.

According to Gap evidence No. 1 (Contract for Construction Work) adopted by the court below, the plaintiff, the contractor of the contract of this case, shall keep 20/1,00 of the construction amount in custody of the defendant, the contractor of this case, for one year from the date of completion inspection, as the security deposit for defective construction materials or other defects caused in violation of the contract for construction work, and if the plaintiff fails to perform his duty of repair, etc. by the designated date, he may recognize the fact that the defendant agreed to compensate for the defects caused in the contract of this case at his intentional cost. In order to compensate the plaintiff for the warranty liability under the contract of this case, the plaintiff shall first determine the cause of the defect of this case, namely, whether the defect was caused by defective construction materials or other defects in construction work, and shall consider the defendant's fault that was processed to expand the defect in calculating the damages amount.

However, according to the appraisal result of the non-party appraiser of the court below cited by the court below in this case, if the foundation of the building was constructed by disregarding the dynamic line after the local flag, the building or structure was invaded and damaged as a result of the Dong (the ground is ice and the ground surface is unfrighted). The ground where the building in this case is located is at least 2 to 2.5 meters away from the dong line of Seoul. In the case of the building in this case, the ground dong line was at least 1 meters away from the dong line of Seoul, and the ground dong line was at least 2 to 2.5 meters away from the dong line of Seoul. In the case of the building in this case, the building in this case, the water flows into the damaged site, and the atmosphere temperature continued to reach 0 degrees above 0 degrees, and the building cost of the building in this case was calculated by disregarding the defects of the building in the ground floor and the wall, but the building cost of the building in this case was at least 160 meters.

If the defects of the underground water leakage of the building of this case mainly occurred due to the East Building, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the warranty liability of this case under the contract of this case, and in the incomplete hearing or incomplete reasoning because the foundation of the building of this case was constructed by disregarding the dynamic line after the local flag, whether such foundation construction was constructed according to specifications and design drawings, or the defendant's order as the contractor or the contractor, and further, if the warranty liability of the plaintiff is recognized, the court below should determine the amount of the plaintiff's warranty by considering the plaintiff's wrongness that was processed by the expansion of the defect, after calculating the cost of defect repair, and then the court below's action which recognized the liability of 30% of the amount of the plaintiff on the basis of the repair cost, without considering the plaintiff's fault that was processed by the expansion of the defect. The above law constitutes the reversal of Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)