Plaintiff’s representative meeting (Attorney Park Hong-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dora community 1

Korean Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 19, 2007

Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Gahap10668 Delivered on November 30, 2006

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the plaintiff against the defendant Samchia, Yangyang Co., Ltd., which orders additional payments under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

The Plaintiff shall pay 26,975,693 won to the Plaintiff, and 16,32,194 won to the Defendant Yang Chang-young Co., Ltd., and 5% interest per annum from April 21, 2006 to November 2, 2007, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeals and the defendants' appeals are dismissed in all of the plaintiff's three-dimensional community and defendant Yang Chang-young Co., Ltd.

3. 50% of the total litigation costs incurred between the Plaintiff, Defendant Samdo Community, and Defendant Yang Chang-young Co., Ltd. shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the said Defendants, respectively, and the appeal costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd.,

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

5. According to the reduction of the purport of the claim in the trial, Section 1(c) of the judgment of the court of first instance was modified as follows.

The Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. shall pay 328,164,648 won and 5% per annum from April 21, 2006 to November 30, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Purport of claim

The plaintiff shall pay 1,053,546,32 won, 1,006, 542, 589 won, and 328,164,648 won, and 2060,08, 911 won, jointly with the above defendants, to the plaintiff, Samdo Community Co., Ltd., and 328,164,648 won, and each of the above amounts shall be paid 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for change of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case to the day of the judgment of the first instance, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff reduced the plaintiff's claim against the defendants as to damages for delay).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall revoke the part against the plaintiff which ordered additional payment. The plaintiff shall pay 51,739,635 won to the plaintiff, and 535,777,258 won to the defendant Samyang Co., Ltd., and 535,77,258 won as to each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the claim of this case and the application for modification of the cause of the claim, to the day of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff shall be deemed to have reduced the purport of appeal by reducing the claim for damages for delay against the defendants at the court of first instance).

B. Defendants: The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the above revocation part shall be dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

① Pursuant to the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003) and the former Decree on the Management of Apartment Houses ( repealed by Presidential Decree No. 18146 of Nov. 29, 2003 and incorporated into the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act), the Plaintiff is an autonomous and management organization organized by occupants for the management of 12 1,080 households, Seo-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant apartment house”) (hereinafter “instant apartment house”) with the aim of purchasing and selling, leasing, etc. of the apartment house.

(b) Details of the occurrence of defects and defects;

From among the facilities of the apartment of this case, Defendant Samsan built the Section 2, such as an apartment building 107 to 112, an underground parking lot 203 to 204, a central supply room, and an apartment building 101 to 106, an apartment building 201 to 106, an underground parking lot 202 to 205, and an apartment building 205, a kindergarten and a commercial building, etc., and occupied the residents after a pre-use inspection on April 25, 1995. However, there were parts that were not constructed or defective construction differently from the design drawings at the time of the approval of the project, and there were parts that were different from the design drawings at the time of the project, and accordingly, there were remaining parts of the apartment of this case, such as the defect warranty liability and defect warranty liability or defect warranty liability in accordance with the amended Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act and the amended Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the defect warranty liability or defect warranty liability for 10 years.

C. The instant guarantee agreement

On April 13, 1995, in order to guarantee the obligation to repair the apartment of this case, the defendant Samhdo and Soyang-young entered into a guarantee agreement with the head of Seocho-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City, the head of Seo-gu, the head of Seo-gu, Daejeon, the guarantee creditor, the guarantee amount of KRW 328,164,648, and the guarantee period from April 25, 1995 to April 24, 2005, which are the guarantee period, to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused to the plaintiff due to the failure of the performance despite receiving the request for the payment of the repair due to the defects that occurred within the guarantee period (hereinafter referred to as the "guarantee agreement of this case"). After fulfilling the obligation to be issued accordingly, the guarantee guarantee agreement of this case was deposited with the head of Seo-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City, the authority to use the guarantee agreement of this case, and the head of Seo-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City changed the name of the guarantee creditor to the plaintiff.

(d) Circumstances, etc. of transferring or transferring claims;

(1) Of the owners who acquired the apartment of this case from Defendant Samdo Community and Soyang, or who acquired it from the first buyer or acquired it from the first buyer (540 persons each of the sections 1, 2, and 460.1 persons each of the sections 2, and 467.5 persons each of the sections 2, from July 2007 to September 11, 2007, transferred all the rights, such as the right to claim damages in lieu of the repair of the defects in this case, to the Plaintiff.

(2) On the other hand, the plaintiff has led the defect repair business of the apartment of this case and its incidental facilities during that period, and when receiving damages in lieu of the defect repair of this case from the defendants, it is planned to perform the defect repair business of the apartment of this case in money.

(3) The details of the entire household of the instant apartment, the details of the section for exclusive use thereof, the details of the household that transferred the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, and the details of the said section for exclusive use thereof are as shown in the attached Tables 3 and 4. The ratio of the total area of the entire area of the entire area of the first construction section constructed by the Defendant Yangyang-gu, compared to the total area of the entire area of the entire area of the entire area of the household of the first construction section constructed by the Defendant Samyang-gu, the ratio of the total area of the entire area of the entire area of the entire area of the second construction section constructed by the Defendant Samyang-gu, to

(e) the application of the amended Housing Act;

Meanwhile, the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 7520, May 26, 2005; hereinafter “former Housing Act”) and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (amended by Act No. 7502; hereinafter “former Aggregate Buildings Act”) were amended on May 26, 2005, while the lawsuit in this case was pending (hereinafter “amended Housing Act and the amended Aggregate Buildings Act”) and Article 3 of the Addenda to the amended Housing Act applied the amended Housing Act to the warranty liability and defect repair of collective housing even in the lawsuit in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, part of Gap evidence Nos. 4, part of the first instance court's appraisal entrustment to non-party Nos. 1 and 2, the result of the first instance court's inquiry to non-party Nos. 1 and 2, and part of the inquiry results of May 8, 2006, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Samdore Museum and Yang Young-young

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

As the project undertaker of the apartment in this case, Defendant Samsan and Yangyang are liable to compensate the sectional owner for damages in lieu of the repair of defects that occurred in relation to the apartment in this case. As to the apartment in this case, each of the defects, such as the entries in the attached Tables 1 and 2, have occurred within the defect warranty period and remain. As seen in the above basic facts, the Plaintiff received from some of the sectional owners of the apartment in this case the damages claim against the above Defendants, and therefore, the above Defendants are liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the above acquisition amount.

B. Relevant statutes and interpretation

(1) Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table 5 shall be as follows.

(2) Interpretation of the scope, etc. of defects subject to defect repairs by the load-bearing structure

As seen above, the amended Housing Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the apartment house is liable to repair the apartment house within the scope of 10 years in a case where the apartment house is likely to collapse or collapse due to the defect in the portions of proof-proof structures or where the apartment house is determined to collapse as a result of safety diagnosis. However, the purport of such provision is that the apartment house is particularly liable for aggravated liability in light of its danger and importance with respect to the serious defect such as the defect in the portions of proof-proof structures, and that the apartment house is not limited to the case where the apartment house is likely to collapse or collapse. If the defect in the portions of proof-proof structures recognized as defect repair is considered to be limited to the case where the apartment house is likely to collapse or collapse, it does not result in a uniform removal of proof-proof structures, which are the most important part in the safety of the apartment house, without recognizing the repair obligation until the collapse of the apartment house, and the purport of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides that the defect liability period of the apartment house is less than the one of the project undertakers or defect in its structure.

C. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(1) Conversion of burden of proof

The defect liability period stipulated in Article 59(1) and attached Table 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Housing Act refers to "the period of the defect occurrence" and does not mean the duration of the defect liability. Thus, even after the expiration of the defect liability period, the defect liability liability still exists until the expiration of the statute of limitations. However, in relation to the period of the defect occurrence, the existence of the defect must be proved by the plaintiff, but it is difficult to require the plaintiff who is the representative of the tenant to prove the period of the defect, while considering the fact that the defect is difficult to require the plaintiff to prove the period of the defect occurrence, and that the fact that the defect was not caused within the defect liability period is proved by the above Defendants to be exempted from the defect liability period.

(2) Defects arising during the warranty period

In this case, according to the above facts, each defect in the "Defect" column in the attached Tables 1 and 2, which occurred with respect to the apartment of this case, shall be subject to the defect liability period of 10 years or 5 years, such as the defect in the load proof structure, as in the defect liability period as in the attached Tables 1 and 2, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that each defect was not occurred within the defect liability period. Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by considering the facts and the whole purport of the arguments as a whole, are as follows: ① from April 2000 to April 5, 200, the time when the plaintiff used the above defendants to demand the repair of the rupture of the underground parking lot slabb, which constitutes the defect subject to the defect liability period of 5 years from the inspection date of the apartment of this case; ② the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case before the expiration of 10 years from the inspection date of the apartment of this case; and ② from that time, each defect in the defect liability period of 10 years from the facility inspection and its actual condition.

(3) Occurrence of damages

Meanwhile, although the proviso of Article 6 of the Addenda to the amended Aggregate Building Act provides that "the warranty liability and the repair of defects of a multi-family housing shall be governed by the provisions of Article 46 of the Housing Act", and Article 46 (3) of the amended Housing Act provides that "the project owner shall be liable for damages caused by defects if serious defects occur in the portions of proof-stress structures of a multi-family housing within the warranty liability period under the provisions of paragraph (1)", it is not likely that Article 46 of the amended Housing Act as well as the provisions of Article 46 of the amended Housing Act as the basis for the right to claim damages in lieu of the defect repair (in particular, to the tenant representative of the same nature as the plaintiff), there is no provision regarding the right to claim damages in lieu of the defect repair of the amended Housing Act, and (2) the phrase "security liability and the repair of defects" of Article 46 of the Housing Act as the part to which the Housing Act applies pursuant to the proviso of Article 6 of the amended Housing Act is still defined as the owner's warranty liability of Article 664 of the Housing Act.

Therefore, according to Article 9 of the Aggregate Buildings Act, and Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act, defendant Samdo Community and Yangyang shall be liable to compensate for damages in lieu of the repair of each defect in the attached Tables 1 and 2, as the business entity of the apartment of this case. As seen in the above basic facts, the plaintiff acquired the damage claim against the above defendants from some of the sectional owners, so the defendant shall be liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages in lieu of the repair of each defect in the attached Tables 1 and 2, according to the ratio of the transferred claim.

(4) Scope of damages

(A) Scope of damages against sectional owners

Furthermore, there is no dispute between the parties as to the amount of the expenses for repairing the Defendants liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages in lieu of defect repair; the total expenses for repairing the defects of the commercial buildings and kindergartens in the construction section 5,37,351 won; the following expenses for repairing the defects are deducted from the expenses for repairing the defects; the result of partial entrustment to the appraiser 1 and 2 of the court of first instance; the result of inquiry by the appraiser 1 and 2 of the court of first instance as of June 22, 2006; and the fact inquiry by the court of first instance as of May 8, 2006, the whole expenses for repairing the defects stated in the attached Tables 1 and 2 List 1, 2, 367, 86, 796, 7966, 7965, 7966, 7965, 79666, 7965, 7965, 79666, 7965, 79666, 29666, 766666, 7, etc.

(B) Scope of the Plaintiff’s assignee’s claim

However, with respect to Section 1 constructed by the Plaintiff in lieu of the defect repair to be paid by the said Defendants to the sectional owners, the ratio of the amount of damages that the Plaintiff acquired by the Plaintiff from the sectional owners was 85.21% of the total amount of the total amount of the total amount of the total amount of the total amount of all household deposits to the Plaintiff, and with respect to Section 2 constructed by the Defendant Samsan Community, the fact that the total amount of the total amount of the total amount of all household deposits to the Plaintiff compared to the total amount of the total amount of all household deposits to the Plaintiff is 86.78% of the total amount of the total amount of all household deposits to the Plaintiff is not disputed between the parties. Accordingly, the said Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 62,096,918 (=716,86,696,696 wonx 86.78/100, less than KRW 815,251,297,2515,297,25157,297.257)

D. Determination as to the assertion of Defendant Samdo Community and Mayang Young-gu

(1) Determination as to the assertion of extinctive prescription

(A) The Defendants asserted that the warranty period under the Enforcement Decree of the amended Housing Act is the exclusion period, and that in the case of defects to which the warranty period of five-year defect liability is applied among the defects in the Plaintiff’s assertion, the warranty period of five-year defect liability period has already expired due to the lapse of five years from April 25, 1995, which was the date of inspection of the instant apartment, due to the instant lawsuit filed on December 24, 2004, which was the date of inspection of the use of the instant apartment, the claim for the repair of defects and the claim for damages in lieu thereof had already been extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period. Furthermore, the interruption period against the said Defendants by the Plaintiff was not the time of filing the instant lawsuit, but the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the damages claim from some of the sectional owners, and thus, the damage claim

(B) In light of Article 59(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the amended Housing Act, the term of warranty liability is only the term of occurrence of defect in its language, but it does not mean that the council of occupants' representatives, etc. may demand the project undertaker to compensate for the defect, and does not provide that the council of occupants' representatives, etc. shall demand the repair of the defect within that term, or that the warranty liability exists during that period. Thus, the above warranty liability period cannot be interpreted as the exclusion period of the exercise of the right to claim the repair of defect (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da25632, Jun. 16, 2006). Since the warranty liability period is interpreted to mean the occurrence period of defect in its language, and it does not mean the duration of the obligation to request the repair of defect in its defect within the warranty liability period, the statute of limitations shall run only after the expiration of each warranty period

(C) In addition, Article 9 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act provides that Articles 67 through 671 of the Civil Act, which are the provisions on the warranty liability of a contractor under the Civil Act, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the warranty liability of a seller of an aggregate building, in order to induce a seller of an aggregate building to construct a solid building and to further protect the owner of an defective building. Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that a special contract which provides for the warranty liability of a seller of an aggregate building, is null and void than that provided under the Civil Act, which provides that the warranty liability of a buyer is null and void, and it clearly provides that the warranty liability of a seller of an aggregate building is a contractor's warranty liability under the Civil Act, and it cannot be deemed that the warranty liability of Article 9 of the Aggregate Buildings Act is a contractor's warranty liability under the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da47733, Feb. 11, 2003). The warranty liability in lieu of defect repair liability of the above Defendants of the owner of an apartment building in

(D) Therefore, the damage claim in lieu of the defect repair liability of the owner of the apartment of this case against the above defendants for the five-year defect warranty liability period against the above defendants should be expired from April 26, 2000 on the day after the five-year period, which was from April 25, 1995, the inspection date of the use of the apartment of this case, to April 26, 200, which was the day after the five-year period from April 25, 1995. The owner of the apartment of this case transferred the damage claim that the above defendants had against the above defendants from July 2007 to September 11, 2007, before the ten-year period from the above point of time, and the interruption of the extinctive prescription by exercising his right was interrupted. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case on December 24, 2004, and it is clear that there was no dispute between the parties or in the record. Therefore, the

(E) Furthermore, even if the claim for damages against the above Defendants was established against the above Defendants, until April 200, when the Plaintiff had filed a lawsuit against the above Defendants without directly filing a lawsuit against the above Defendants, and later transferred their claim against them to the Plaintiff, the period of assignment of claims against the above Defendants is detrimental to the principle of good faith, which constitutes a defect subject to the defect liability period of five years from the date of the usage inspection of the apartment complex. However, the above Defendants filed a lawsuit on behalf of the above Defendants, on behalf of the above Defendants. The damages amount received from the above Defendants was anticipated to repair the defect in this case. In light of the above, there is controversy as to whether the Plaintiff and the council of occupants' representatives can exercise the right to claim damages in lieu of the defect repair, and later, the sectional owner's claim against the above Defendants was transferred to the Plaintiff, not by the time when the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the said Defendants, and thus, it would not be reasonable to regard the period of release as the time of assignment of claims, which is contrary to the principle of good faith or Article 9 (2) of Aggregate Act.

(2) Determination as to the assertion of defects in balcony rail and rail salves

The above defendants asserted to the effect that the warranty liability period of 1 to 3 years is applied to defects such as cracks, etc. occurred in the balcony rail and a railing of the apartment of this case, since they do not correspond to the load proof structure part.

As a result of the fact-finding conducted on May 8, 2006 by the appraiser of the court of first instance against the non-party 1 and 2 of the court of first instance, the balcony rail consists of slot and a rail. Among them, it falls under the load-proof structure of the building, and the sapb itself does not fall under the load-proof structure. On the other hand, the slves are constructed together with the slves, and the slves are not inside the slves, and the slves are not inside the slves, and the slves from the slves are likely to be developed or expanded into the slves. According to the above facts-finding, it is reasonable to view the slves and other defects in the slves are directly affected by the stability of the major parts in the structural proof of the building. Thus, this part of the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the assertion of defects, such as removal of the pumps of the elevator moving space

The above defendants asserted that the defects related to removal of the pumps of the elevator moving space (for the purpose of preventing the destruction of the body of movement space) and defects related to the separation of materials in the elevator moving space and the removal of the steel removal from office are defects subject to the defect liability period of three years. Thus, the above defendants asserted that the claim for damages in lieu of the defect liability liability for each of the above defects has already been extinguished upon the filing of the suit at the expiration of five years from the expiration date of the above defect liability period of the commercial claim, as the suit of this case was filed at the expiration date of five years from the expiration date of the defect liability period of the above defect liability period. The above defendants asserted that the above defendants' explicit assertion that the claim for damages in lieu of the defect liability of the above defendants had already been filed after the expiration of the defect liability period under the premise that the above defect liability period of this case was the defect liability period of this case, which cannot be accepted for the above reasons as seen in paragraph (1) above. However, even if the above explicit assertion by the above defendants is not the defect liability period of domestic affairs, as seen in the above.

In full view of the results of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on June 22, 2006 on the non-party 1 and 2 and the fact-finding conducted by the court on May 8, 2006, the whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: ① although the pumps themselves do not fall under the load-resistant structure but do not remove the pumps, it can be affected by cracks in concrete inside the moving space of an elevator which is combined with it due to the corrosion of water leakage or malfunction in the elevator moving space; ② the defects related to the separation of materials from the elevator moving space and the removal of steel bars are directly generated from concrete, etc. inside the elevator moving space, which directly affects the load-stress structure of the elevator moving structure (this part of the defendants are also the main reasons to recognize the installation of the elevator moving space and the removal of concrete parts of the elevator itself. However, according to the main reasons to the purport that the aforementioned installation and removal of electricity within the elevator's inner equipment are not related to the elevator removal.

(4) Determination on the part concerning the allegation on partial design

The above Defendants asserted to the effect that in determining the amount of compensation for damages against the Plaintiff of the above Defendants, the fee should be calculated based on the partial design, since the mashion of the repair after the payment of the outer wall cracks is sufficient to the part that is not the front design.

In light of the empirical rule, it is necessary to completely hold the defendants' assertion on this part, since it is inevitable to prevent a spawned repair of the apartment of this case, in order to prevent a spawnance of aesthetic view after repairing the apartment of this case, in light of the fact that if only the spawn part concerning the spawn part exists, the color and pattern of the remaining parts would vary, etc., and if only the spawn part concerning the spawn part would remain in appearance due to the difference in the color and pattern of the remaining parts. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the transaction price of the apartment of this case would decline in the apartment of this case.

(5) Determination on the assertion of the full-scale increase in the premium rate

The above defendants asserts to the effect that even if the full design is implemented in the rupture repair work, it is unfair to increase the number of parts required by the appraiser non-party 1 and 2 to 8.2% according to the standard construction cost, even though the number of parts required by the appraiser non-party 1 and 2 should be increased to 8.2% according to the standard construction cost.

In light of the whole purport of the argument as to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the first instance court's fact inquiry on June 22, 2006, the construction work standard satum has a premium rate by height as argued by the above defendants. However, this is premised on the use of the non-system, while in the case of the apartment of this case, since the residents already live in a non-system, the number of figures required for using non-systems should be based. Thus, the fact that the above appraiser 1 and the non-party 2 calculated the repair cost at an increase rate by 40% in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the height of the apartment of this case, etc. on the premise of the above fact finding, the appraiser 1 and the non-party 2 calculated the repair cost according to the reasonable increase rate by considering the two circumstances, such as the repair work method suitable for the front map and the present situation of the apartment of this case. Thus, this part of the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

(6) Determination as to the assertion of colonization within the allowable scope

Finally, the above defendants asserted that the crack heat generated in the apartment of this case does not constitute a defect because it is natural phenomenon caused by concrete drying axis, or even if it is defective, the crack heat within 0.3mm from this point does not constitute a defect because it does not constitute a defect because it is within the permissible rupture width under the laws and regulations.

It is not reasonable to uniformly exclude rupture below a certain standard from defect repair object without considering the environmental condition that rupture is generated since concrete outer walls generated by rupture are exposed to the appearance of the building, such as reducing the inner strength of the structure, as the steel corrosion is corrosioned and rupture spread due to the infiltration of rainwater, etc., and as well, it is not reasonable to uniformly exclude rupture below a certain standard from defect repair object. In full view of the appraisal result of the court of first instance and the fact inquiry result of the court of first instance on May 8, 2006 about the appraiser non-party 1 and non-party 2, and the fact inquiry result of the court of first instance, it can be acknowledged that the rupture, etc. generated from the outer wall of the apartment of this case, etc. of this case, is a defect in construction. Thus, the above defendants' assertion is without merit

E. Limitation of liability

(1) However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, are as follows, namely, ① the apartment of this case after the use inspection was completed and the ten-year period has passed from the date the actual appraisal of defects was implemented, ② the apartment of this case can be naturally occurring, ② the defendant Dondo Community and Donyang had already implemented the defect repair of the apartment of this case over several times at the Plaintiff’s request. ③ Although the part of the apartment of this case should be calculated on the basis of the front Dogdo road, which is not the site, the apartment of this case had already been ten years or more after the use inspection, even if the defects of this case had not occurred, additional color was required, and even if the apartment of this case had already been completed for more than 10 years after the use inspection, there was a need to further color, and even in the case of the front Dog-do, it is reasonable to view the amount of damages to be paid by the above Defendants to the Plaintiff as the defect repair expenses of this case (3) 85%.

(2) Calculation (based on the amount of damages that the Defendants are liable to compensate for to a sectional owner, the amount shall be calculated again according to the Plaintiff’s above ratio of acquisition of claims, but the result of calculation is the same. Therefore, for convenience, the amount shall be calculated again based on the amount according to the Plaintiff’s above ratio of acquisition of claims among the amount of damages that the Defendants are liable to compensate

(A) Defendant Samdo Community 528,782,380 won (=622,096,918 Won x 85/100)

(B) Defendant Yang-young 487,097,525 won (=573,055,912 Won x 85/100)

(C) Total KRW 1,015,879,905 (= KRW 528,782,380 + KRW 487,097,525)

F. Sub-committee

(1) Therefore, among the above KRW 1,015,879,905, as sought by the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages in lieu of the defect repair of the Section 2, KRW 528,782,380 in lieu of the defect repair of the Section 2, and ② Defendant Boyang-young is obligated to pay damages in lieu of the defect repair of the Section 1,487,097,525, and damages for delay.

(2) On January 10, 2007, after the judgment of the first instance court of this case, Defendant Yang Chang-young asserts that the amount of money should be deducted since the Plaintiff paid KRW 280,00,000 to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff performed compulsory execution based on the declaration of provisional execution by the judgment of the first instance court.

However, even though the above defendant paid the above amount to the plaintiff on January 10, 2007, it is reasonable to view that the above amount constitutes the so-called provisional payment under Article 215 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act with the amount that the above defendant paid to the plaintiff on the ground that even if the plaintiff's assertion was based on the plaintiff's assertion, the payment of the above amount was made by the plaintiff through a declaration of provisional execution, so it is reasonable to view that it constitutes the so-called provisional payment under Article 215 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da929 delivered on June 22, 197)

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's housing guarantee

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Under the instant guarantee agreement, the Defendant’s Housing Guarantee is a compensation in lieu of the repair of defects arising in relation to the instant apartment, and is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages for the damages incurred in relation to the instant apartment, which is KRW 328,164,648, and damages for delay, the guarantee limit, out of the total amount of damages incurred in relation to the instant apartment.

B. Determination

(1) Comprehensively taking into account the terms of the instant guarantee agreement and the amended Housing Act and the relevant provisions of the Enforcement Decree thereof, the Defendant’s Housing Guarantee is obligated to pay the damages to the owner of the instant apartment within the guarantee limit, as a guarantor under the instant guarantee agreement, for each warranty period prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the amended Housing Act, as to the instant apartment, in lieu of the repair of defects arising within the guarantee period of the instant guarantee agreement, in lieu of the repair of defects arising within the guarantee period of the instant apartment.

However, the warranty period of the contract of this case as of April 24, 2005, when 10 years have elapsed since the date of the usage inspection of the apartment of this case, the warranty period of the apartment of this case is 1,180,980,307 won (=609,336,691 won) + 571,646,63636,100 won + 571,64636,100 won under the revised Housing Act and its Enforcement Decree, and the warranty bond of this case is the warranty bond of this case as of 2.2. The warranty bond of this case is a defect that occurred within 5 or 10 years under the warranty period under the revised Housing Act and its Enforcement Decree, and the warranty bond of this case is 1,180,980,307 won (=609,366,691 won) and the warranty bond of this case is to be paid to the sectional owner.

(2) Determination on the assertion of the Defendant’s Housing Guarantee

In the above-mentioned 2-D., the assertion of Defendant Cyera and Cyerae in this subsection and the determination thereof are same.

(3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant's house guarantee is jointly and severally liable with the defendant Samdo Community and Yang Young-young to pay 328,164,648 won out of 1,180,980,307 won under the above paragraph (1) and damages for delay.

4. Conclusion

A. If so, as the plaintiff seeks, 1,015, 879, 905 won among the above 1,28,782,380 won and 501,86,687 won cited by the court of first instance as to the above 30-day damages for delay, 20% of the above 10-day damages for delay, 30% of the above 20-day damages for delay, 5% of the above 10-day damages for delay, 40-day damages for delay, 5% of the above 20-day damages for delay, 5% of the above 20-day damages for delay, 40-day damages for delay, 5% of the above 10-day damages for delay, 7% of the above 1-6-day damages for delay, 5% of the above-mentioned damages for delay, 20-day damages for delay, 40% of the above-mentioned damages for delay, 70% of the above-mentioned damages for delay.

B. Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant Samdon and Yang Yang-young is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as without merit, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's house guarantee against the defendant is accepted as it is reasonable. Since the part against the defendant's above defendants as to the defendant's house guarantee against the defendant's above defendant's above defendant's above-mentioned money is unfair with different conclusion, part of the plaintiff's appeal is accepted in part, and it is revoked and the payment is ordered to be made to the above defendants. The plaintiff's appeal against Samdon and Yang-young and the remaining appeal against the defendant's defendant Samdon and Yang-young and the appeal by the defendants are all reasonable. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of the court of first instance as to the reduction of the plaintiff's damages for delay as to the plaintiff's part as to the plaintiff's damages for delay.

[Attachment 1, 2, 3, and 4]

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-won