(a) A case where the project supervisor or his assistant is found to have errors in supervision that have not corrected construction in conflict with the Acts and subordinate statutes;

(b) Legal nature of an inspection for completion conducted by an architect and compensation for damage caused thereby;

A. The construction of a pipe for a chimney between the inner wall and the outer wall without installing a chimney of a building on the outer wall is likely to obstruct sanitation because the risk of smoke stack leakage is so heavy that it constitutes construction in conflict with Article 2 of the Building Act and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and if the construction supervisor or his assistant did not point out and correct it, it is erroneous in the supervision.

(b) An inspection for completion conducted by a certified architect is separate from supervision conducted by the party concerned, which is conducted by an administrative agency as an agent under the Acts and subordinate statutes, so if a certified architect entrusted with construction supervision by the owner commits an error in conducting the same inspection of the building concerned, he shall be liable to compensate for the damages suffered by other persons as well as the building owner.

A. Article 2 of the Certified Architects Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Certified Architects Act, Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1740 of Aug. 16, 1985)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na3468 delivered on August 21, 1986

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the construction work of the above plaintiff 1 to be connected to the boiler's co-defendant 1 at the time of original adjudication, and judged that the chimney to be connected to the boiler's outer wall of the building was designed to be connected to the boiler's building, but part of the outer wall of the building was installed, and the outer wall of the building was 100 square meters away from that of the building, so that the chimney's outer wall of the building can be connected to the entrance of the boiler's outer wall laid underground, and the thickness of the inner wall was merely 25 meters away from that of the above building's inner wall, and the construction work of the above building was not connected to the building's outer wall's outer wall's outer wall's outer wall's outer wall's outer wall's outer wall's outer wall's outer wall's construction supervision was not connected to the plaintiff 1's outer wall's outer wall's outer wall's outer wall's construction supervision was not connected to the building's outer wall'.

According to Article 2 of the Certified Architects Act, construction supervision refers to confirming whether a certified architect has been constructed in accordance with design documents under his responsibility and guidance as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. According to Article 2 and attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, with respect to multi-family housing under Article 33 subparagraph 3 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act or other buildings which are not facilities subject to the construction supervision under Article 6 (3) of the Building Act, construction supervision shall be conducted at any time or, when necessary, at any time, and construction supervision shall be conducted in conformity with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and construction guidance shall be made in conformity with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. According to Article 2 of the Building Act and Article 49 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1740 of Aug. 16, 1985), if a chimney, one of the building facilities, is installed, such construction supervision shall not interfere with the safety, fire prevention, and sanitation of the building, as determined by the court below, and if installation of a chimney between the outer wall and the construction supervisor is in conflict with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

Furthermore, according to Article 2 of the Certified Architects Act, a certified architect conducts the design and construction supervision of the original building, or Article 19 (2) of the same Act provides for the affairs concerning the investigation and appraisal of the building other than the above design and construction supervision, and Article 23-2 of the same Act, Article 25 (3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 18 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the Minister of Construction and Transportation to conduct an investigation and inspection of the apartment house and multi-household house, etc. In this case, a certified architect shall conduct an inspection as to whether the construction work conflicts with the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and Article 7 (3) of the Building Act and Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that a certified architect shall conduct an investigation and inspection of the completion under Article 23-2 of the Certified Architects Act, and the head of the Si/Gun shall, if he has submitted the completion inspection report and inspection report, provide that the certified architect shall conduct such inspection without delay, and it shall be conducted by a separate inspection of construction inspection.

If a smokestack of the above building is not installed on the outer wall of the building and connected without using a boiler stove and a boiler stove, as seen earlier, the above construction goes against the design documents and drawings as well as constitutes construction in conflict with the laws and regulations. Thus, in this case where it is evident in the record that the plaintiff is liable for the error in the construction supervision of the defendants, as determined by the court below, if the defendants fail to discover the above unlawful construction and undergo a completion inspection as it is without any fault in the scope of the architect's supervision act claiming the above construction or supervision act of the defendants, regardless of whether the defendants were erroneous in the scope of the construction supervision act of the building, and the conclusion that the defendants were responsible for the completion inspection on behalf of the administrative agency for the completion inspection on behalf of the plaintiff (the court below stated that the plaintiff 1 requested the construction supervision and completion inspection on behalf of the non-party 2, as stated in the judgment below, that the plaintiff 2 was liable for damages caused by the construction supervision and inspection on behalf of the non-party 15.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

The lower court determined that, as seen above, if a chimney was installed outdoor in accordance with the design documents, there was no need to connect the pipe installed on behalf of the chimney with the boiler to EL(L), and that the pipe and the boiler connected with the outer wall as seen earlier was installed on the ground that there was a reduction in the thickness of the wall due to the installation of a chimney instead of a chimney, shocking of the shocking and heating rupture with the heat inside the inner wall at the time of the installation, and because the pipe and the boiler were left alone without sticking the pipe and the boiler installed on the connecting part of the pipe, the lower court did not have any error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendants’ negligence and did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the negligence of the aforementioned construction executor, and did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the negligence of the Defendants.

3. We examine the third ground for appeal.

In order to treat Plaintiff 2, the lower court did not err by taking out an amount equivalent to KRW 8.5 million for medicinal herbs, such as the instant earth and sand, and by deeming that it was not unrelated to the treatment of Plaintiff 2, who was a simple plant.

4. 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)