(a) Liability of a contractor who knows that the instruction of a contractor is inappropriate, but fails to notify it to the contractor;

(b) Where a contractor has completed a construction work in compliance with a supervisor’s instructions after the occurrence of the construction work, whether the contractor may be deemed to have failed to notify the supervisor of the occurrence of the construction work knowing that the design document is inappropriate;

(c) The case holding that it is not liable for warranty due to any defect in the design drawing to the contractor, in case where the construction has continued to be performed with only drainage measures taken according to the direction after the groundwater has been distributed out and notified to the supervisor during the construction work; and

(a) Where a contractor who executes a construction work according to the instruction of the contractor fails to notify the contractor of the defects of the completed building despite being aware that it is inappropriate to do so, he shall not be exempted from the warranty liability even if the defects of the completed building are attributable to the instruction of the contractor;

B. A supervisor of a construction project is a person who, in accordance with the designation and request of the project owner, checks whether the construction project is performed in accordance with the design documents at the discretion of a supervisor and instructs the contractor, in order to ensure that the contractor is able to complete a building without any defects in the construction project on behalf of the project owner. Thus, if the contractor finds the circumstances that occurred during the construction project to the supervisor and continues the construction project in accordance with the original design documents according to his/her instructions, it cannot be deemed that the contractor has not notified the defects arising from the defects in the design documents in the house completed

(c) The case holding that the contractor is not liable for warranty due to any defect in the design drawing, in case where the construction has been continued with taking only drainage measures according to the direction of the supervisor after the groundwater has been distributed out and notified of the supervisor;

Article 669 of the Civil Act

-Appellee General Construction Corporation (Law Firm Daegu General Law Office, Attorney Seo-yang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Appellant Daejin Industrial Co., Ltd., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 93Na2804, 2811 decided May 26, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the Defendants (including the Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a contractor who executes a construction work according to the direction of the contractor does not inform the contractor of the defect in the completed building despite being aware that it is inappropriate to do so, he/she may not be exempted from the warranty liability even if the defect in the completed building arises from the direction of the contractor. However, the supervisor of the construction work is a person who confirms, at the discretion of the contractor, whether the construction work is executed in accordance with the design document in order for the contractor to complete the building without any defect in accordance with the designation and request of the contractor, and administers the construction work in compliance with the direction of the contractor, and if the contractor is deemed to have caused the situation during the construction work and continues the construction work in accordance with the original design document, he/she cannot be deemed to have failed to inform the contractor of the defect in the domestic building even though the contractor knew that

2. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is just to recognize the facts. If the plaintiff (hereinafter only the plaintiff) contracted the construction of the building of this case to the defendant (the plaintiff Counterclaim plaintiff hereinafter only) for the construction work of this case, and the plaintiff (the plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) notified the non-party (the supervisor) who is responsible for the construction work of this case, he did not make any change in the design, and if the construction work is carried out without any specific reason, the plaintiff believed the horse and believed that the above groundwater is not a serious problem, and the construction work is carried out without deducting the groundwater from the original order, the plaintiff cannot be said to have known that there was any error in the design falling under the direction of the contractor. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's duty to notify the plaintiff that the order of the contractor was inappropriate.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the contractor's warranty liability or the contractor's duty of construction, which misleads the causes of defect liability.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)