[1] Where an aggregate building is transferred, the relationship between the ownership of the right to a warranty against defects under Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (= currently sectional owners of an aggregate building)

[2] Whether the former Housing Construction Promotion Act on the defect repair period of multi-family housing affects the exclusion period of the seller's duty of defect repair under Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (negative)

[3] The case where the seller claims consolation money for mental suffering caused by the defect of a newly constructed building

[1] Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings / [2] Article 38 (14) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003), Article 46 (16) of the current Housing Act (see Article 46 (3) of the current Housing Act), Article 16 of the former Decree on the Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16069 of December 31, 1998) (see Article 59 (1) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act), Article 16-2 (see Article 59 (1) [Attachment Table 7], Article 11 (1) [Attachment 3] of the former Rules on the Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Ordinance No. 219 of December 7, 199), Article 59 (1) [Attachment 7] Article 50 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2150 of the Housing Act]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da47733 Decided February 11, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 773), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da24891 Decided January 27, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 430) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da24891 Decided January 27, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 430) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 69Da2016 Decided March 31, 197 (No18-1, 289), Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29524, 29531 Decided June 10, 2005

Plaintiff 1 and 1,651 (Law Firm Love, Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) (Law Firm Love, Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Labor Union, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na61816, 61823, 61830 decided February 4, 2004

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In case where a purchaser of an aggregate building transfers an aggregate building, the defect security resale right under Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggregate Buildings Act") reverts to a person holding a divided ownership of an aggregate building as of February 11, 2003, unless there are special circumstances such as the transferor reservation in order to exercise it (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da47733, Feb. 11, 2003; 2001Da24891, Jan. 27, 2004, etc.).

Upon examining the above legal principles and the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the subsequent purchaser who participated in the lawsuit of this case by acquiring sectional ownership can seek damages from defects in the apartment of this case directly, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The provisions of Articles 67 through 671 of the Civil Act concerning the contractor's warranty liability shall apply mutatis mutandis to the contractor's warranty liability, and they shall be subject to mandatory provisions, and the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 5914 of Feb. 8, 1999), the former Decree on Management of Multi-Family Housing (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16069 of Dec. 31, 1998), the former Rules on Management of Multi-Family Housing (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2199 of Dec. 7, 199) (amended by Ordinance No. 219 of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation), and the former Rules on Management of Multi-Family Housing (amended by Ordinance No. 219 of Dec. 7, 199), to protect the building owner of the multi-family housing which is poorly constructed, shall be within 1 to 3 years (Provided, That the provisions of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act shall be deemed to be effective for the project owner's warranty of defects and its related standards within 10 years.

Upon examining the above legal principles and the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the defect repair of the defendant under the provisions of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and the liability for damages in lieu of the defect repair of the defendant under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act and the former Decree on the Management of Aggregate Buildings will continue regardless of the extinguishment of the defendant's same liability under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act and the former Decree on the Management of Aggregate Buildings unless 10 years have passed since the completion of the apartment of this case, and that the defendant agreed to follow the provisions of the Decree on the Management of Aggregate Buildings as to the defect repair of the apartment of this case between the plaintiffs and the successor, the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and the appointed party (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") are limited to the warranty liability of the contractor under Article 671 of the Civil Act, and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground for

3. As to the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the council of occupants' representatives made a commitment to repair defects on December 11, 1995 when the defendant refused the request of the council of occupants' representatives for the repair of the apartment of this case and filed a civil petition with the relevant administrative agency and requested the construction mutual aid association directly to pay the repair defects. Considering the defendant's position that if the construction mutual aid association is restricted from its guarantee, the council of occupants' representatives made the defendant's commitment to faithfully repair defects without the completion of the repair of the apartment of this case, the council of occupants' representatives prepared and issued a written confirmation of the completion of the repair of defects as of June 30, 1996. The council of occupants' representatives made notification to the construction mutual aid association of the completion of the repair of the apartment of this case and withdrawn the request for the repair of defects. The defendant's notification of the completion of the repair of defects to the non-party's notification of the completion of the repair of defects by the council of occupants' representatives or the construction completion of construction works by employees.

In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just, and there is no error in law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal argues that the court below erred in its fact-finding, but it is not only an issue belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, but also an error in the fact-finding and judgment of the court below, even if examining the records.

4. As to the fourth ground for appeal

A. Defect parts

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that there are defects such as the validity, well-foundedness, damage to the floor and the depreciation of the underground parking lot, and the installation of the toilet floor heating day, etc., and there is no violation of law as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. The consolation money portion

In general, if there is a defect in a newly constructed building, the mental suffering that the buyer suffered by the buyer is restored by the repair of the defect or the compensation for damages in lieu of the repair of the defect. However, if the buyer knew or could have known such circumstance, the consolation money for mental suffering should be recognized (see Supreme Court Decisions 69Da2016, Mar. 31, 1970; 69Da2016, Jun. 10, 2005; 2003Da29524, 29531, Jun. 10, 2005; 2003Da29524, 29531, etc.). It is proper that the court below partially recognized the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money based on the facts duly admitted by the court below, and there is no violation of law as otherwise asserted

5. Conclusion

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.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)