Whether Article 9(1) of the former Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings and Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant thereto are applicable to the case of a rental apartment converted for sale in lease after having undergone a pre-use inspection or approval for use before May 26, 2005 (affirmative), and in this case, the warranty period (=10 years from the time of delivery to the first lessee)

Article 9(1) of the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 7502 of May 26, 2005), Articles 667, 668, 669, 670, and 671 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2008Da12439 Decided December 11, 2008 (Gong2009Sang, 24) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da88368 Decided January 14, 2010 (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da82060 Decided April 14, 201)

The council of occupants' representatives (Law Firm Shin, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Professor, Attorneys Jeong Hong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na90809 decided April 26, 2011

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 9(1) of the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 7502, May 26, 2005; hereinafter "the former Act") provides that the provisions of Articles 67 through 671 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the warranty liability of the person who constructed and sold the aggregate building. The proviso of Article 671(1) of the Civil Act provides that a contractor of a building constructed with stone, stone, brick, metal and other similar materials shall be liable for warranty for 10 years after delivery of the defect. Meanwhile, Article 6 of the Addenda to the Housing Act as amended by Act No. 7502, May 26, 2005, which was amended by Act No. 7502, May 26, 2005, which was amended by Act No. 7520, May 26, 2005, which was amended by Act No. 7566, May 26, 2005.

In addition, since the warranty liability period under Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act is the exclusion period, which is the exercise period of judicial or extra-judicial rights, the warranty warranty right is extinguished as a matter of course, and the proviso of Article 671(1) of the Civil Act is applied to concrete structures such as the apartment of this case, and the warranty period is ten years after delivery (see Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da88368, Jan. 14, 201; 2009Da82060, Apr. 14, 201, etc.).

2. Furthermore, we examine whether Article 9(1) of the former Aggregate Buildings Act and Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act applicable mutatis mutandis thereto can be applied to the apartment constructed as a rental apartment and leased for five years as in the instant apartment and converted for sale in lots.

Article 9 of the former Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings provides that the provisions of the Civil Act on the contractor's warranty liability shall apply mutatis mutandis to the warranty liability of the person who constructed and sold an aggregate building in order to induce the building to build a solid building and to further protect the owners of an aggregate building which has been constructed and sold in bad faith, and provides that the contents of warranty liability shall apply mutatis mutandis to the warranty liability of the person who purchased and sold the aggregate building. The warranty warranty right under the above provision belongs to the current owner of the aggregate building. Even if the old level of the apartment has already been assessed, it cannot be determined that the defect of the apartment due to defective construction is reflected in the lease contract even if the old level of the apartment has already been assessed, and the tenant's right to claim the repair of defects and the warranty warranty right recognized as the tenant's status is not identical to its legal nature and function. However, in light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the warranty warranty liability period is the first lessee in accordance with the proviso of Article 9 (1) of the former Aggregate Buildings Act and Articles 67 through 10 (1) of the Civil Act.

3. The court below, citing part of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged the fact that the defendant newly constructed the apartment of this case as a project undertaker and obtained approval for use on December 17, 1996, and leased the apartment of this case as a long-term lease house to the lessee around July 2002. The defendant constructed the apartment of this case and sold it for sale in lots around July 200, and held that the first lessee bears the warranty liability liability liability for ten years from the time when the apartment of this case was delivered to him pursuant to Article 9(1) of the former Act and Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act applicable mutatis mutandis thereto. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the starting point of the warranty liability period for the apartment of this case should be the time when the apartment of this case was converted for sale in lots, and that the plaintiff's warranty warranty right that was exercised by transfer from the sectional owners of the apartment of this case, that is, the right to claim damages in lieu of the

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the warranty liability under Article 9 of the former Aggregate Buildings Act.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)