Standing Fee Treatment Apartment Council (Attorneys Choi Young-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Attached List 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs (Attorneys Choi Young-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon Construction Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Law Firm, Attorneys Gangnam-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gold Industry Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Yellow-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 18, 2008

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2003Gahap56194 Delivered on August 29, 2006

1.The judgment of the first instance, including a claim extended and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. On the council of occupants' representatives of the plaintiff's regular gold-free apartment:

1) Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association shall pay an amount calculated by applying each rate of 500,819,496 won and 110,000,000 won among them from August 7, 2003; 5% per annum from September 16, 2004 to February 3, 2009; and 20% per annum from the following date to the date of full payment; and

2) The Defendant Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. shall pay the amount calculated by applying each ratio of 5% per annum from September 16, 2004 to February 3, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 390,443,716 and KRW 110,00,000 among them, and the remainder of KRW 280,443,716 from August 7, 2003 to the date of full payment.

B. Each claim against Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association, Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. by the Plaintiff’s regular fee-free apartment council, and the remainder of the claim against Defendant Treatment Construction Co., Ltd., and gold industry Co., Ltd. is dismissed.

C. The plaintiff's conjunctive Republic of Korea (attached Form 988)'s lawsuit against the defendant Geum Industrial Co., Ltd. shall be dismissed.

D. 1) Defendant Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. pays the amount calculated by applying the respective ratio of 5% per annum from August 7, 2003 to 10,000 of the respective corresponding amounts as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 to 543 of the Plaintiff’s preliminary plaintiff’s defect repair expenses for each household of treatment apartment and each of the above amounts, and 5% per annum from September 16, 2004 to February 3, 2009 to each of the remaining amounts, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment;

2) From August 7, 2003 to February 3, 2009, Defendant Geum Industrial Co., Ltd. paid the amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from September 16, 2004 to February 3, 2009 to the date of full payment as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 544 to 987, 989 to 1128 of the separate sheet of Plaintiffs, and from the following day to the date of full payment, an amount calculated by the ratio of 10,000 won per annum from each of the corresponding amounts as stated in the separate sheet No. 544 to 987, 989 to 1128 of the aforementioned amounts.

E. Each of the remaining claims against Defendant Samsung Construction Co., Ltd. Nos. 1 through 543 in the separate sheet No. 544, 987, and 989, and 1128 in the separate sheet No. 1 to 543, and each of the remaining claims against Defendant Geum Industrial Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

2. Of the total costs of the litigation:

A. The part arising between the Plaintiff’s regular fee-free apartment council and the Defendant’s Construction Mutual Aid Association is 50% of them, and the above Defendant bears the remainder, respectively, by the said Plaintiff.

B. Of the parts arising between the Plaintiff’s Standing Fee Treatment Apartment, the council of occupants’ representatives and the Defendant’s Housing Guarantee Company, the above Defendant bears 40% of the remainder, respectively, and the said Plaintiff bears the remainder.

C. The part arising between the council of occupants' representatives of the plaintiff regular gold-gu treatment apartment and the defendant treatment construction company, and gold industry corporation is borne by the above plaintiff.

D. The costs of lawsuit between the plaintiff in the preliminary plaintiff's Republic of Korea (Attached No. 988) and the defendant Geum Industrial Co., Ltd. are assessed against the plaintiff in the preliminary plaintiff's first instance court, and the costs of lawsuit after the plaintiff's appeal are assessed against the non-party 3 and 4, respectively.

E. Of the parts arising between [Attachment 1] to 543 [Attachment 50] and Defendant Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd., the above Defendant bears 50% of the remainder, respectively, and the above conjunctive Plaintiffs bear the remainder.

F. Of the parts arising between the [Attachment 544 to 987, 989 to 1128 and the Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd., the above Defendant bears 50% of the remainder, respectively.

3. The portion for which no provisional execution has been declared by the first instance court among the portion for which the amount under paragraph (1) has been paid may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

(a)in the first place, to the council of occupants' representatives, the plaintiff regular gold-free apartment;

1) The Defendant Construction Co., Ltd.: 1,789,965,976; and the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association’s 943,014,930 out of the above amount jointly and severally with the Defendant Construction Co., Ltd.;

2) Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 1,096,731,830; and (b) KRW 943,014,915 out of the above amount jointly and severally with Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd.; (c)

As to each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from the day following the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case until the day of service of the copy of the application for extension of claim of this case as of September 9, 2004, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

(b)for the preliminary purpose:

1) The Defendant Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. pays the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to September 9, 2004, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, to each of the conjunctive plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet "amount of claim by treatment apartment plaintiff" as stated in the separate sheet.

2) As to each of the preliminary plaintiffs stated in the “amount of claim” stated in the separate sheet as “amount of claim for each of the plaintiffs of Geumho apartment,” the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to September 9, 2004; the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment; as to each of the corresponding amounts stated in the “amount of claim”, the amount shall be paid at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to March 28, 2008; and as to each of the corresponding amounts, the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of service of the copy of the application for modification of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

[Attachment 20, 111, 121, 162, 284, 360, 428, and 429 among the conjunctive plaintiffs stated in “the claim amount by treatment apartment” have been reduced in the trial. The plaintiffs 547, 573, 590, 617, 703, 711, 712, 725, 742, 770, 805, 887, 907, 943, 989, 99, 99, 104, 101, 107, 1112, 113, 117, 117, and 181 of the plaintiffs’ claims stated in “the claim amount by treatment apartment.”

2. Purport of appeal

A. Purport of the plaintiffs' appeal

1) The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

2) In the first place, to the council of occupants' representatives, the plaintiff regular gold-free apartment:

A) The Defendant Construction Co., Ltd.: 1,422,736,965 won; and the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association KRW 650,056,107 out of the above amount jointly and severally with the Defendant Construction Co., Ltd.;

B) Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd.: 766,29,793 won; and 640,162,179 won out of the above amount jointly and severally with Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd.

As to each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from the day following the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case until the day of service of the copy of the application for extension of claim of this case as of September 9, 2004, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

(iii)for preliminary purposes:

A) The Defendant Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. stated in the separate sheet “amount of claim by treatment apartment Plaintiff” to each of the conjunctive Plaintiffs listed in the “amount of claim by treatment apartment Plaintiff,” and the corresponding amount in the “amount of claim

B) The Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd. shall each of the preliminary Plaintiffs listed in the “amount claimed by each Plaintiff of Geumho apartment” as stated in the separate sheet “amount claimed by each Plaintiff of Geumho apartment.”

As to each of the above amounts, 5% per annum from the day following the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of service of the copy of the application for extension of claim of this case as of September 9, 2004, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. Purport of appeal by Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd and Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd. and the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. shall be revoked, and each of the claims of the council of occupants' representatives falling under the cancellation shall be dismissed

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

Treatment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Treatment Construction”) is a project proprietor who newly constructs and sells six apartment units (101 to 106 dong and 106 dong and 107 dong (hereinafter “instant apartment units”) in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, by means of constructing and selling six apartment units (101 to 106 dong and 106 dong), and at the same time, the goldho Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Gold Industry”) was merged into a goldho Stock Co., Ltd. and its trade name was changed into a gold Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Gold Industry”) at the same time as the merged company was converted to six apartment units (107 to 112 dong and 112 dong) in the said Standing Zone.

The council of occupants' representatives of the plaintiff regular fee-free apartment (hereinafter referred to as the "council of plaintiffs' representatives") is an autonomous management body that consists of representatives of occupants of the above 12 buildings for the management of the treatment apartment and gold apartment in this case pursuant to the former Housing Construction Promotion Act and the former Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing.

The Plaintiffs listed in the table Nos. 1 through 543 of [Attachment 5] list 54 to 1128 of the treatment apartment of this case and the annexed table Nos. 544 to 1128 are co-owners (occupants) of the gold apartment of this case.

(b) Conclusion of a warranty contract;

1) In order to perform the obligation to deposit the warranty bond under Article 38(15) of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 17 of the former Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing with respect to the instant treatment apartment, Defendant Construction Co., Ltd. entered into each warranty bond contract with the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association by setting the warranty period and the guaranteed amount as follows, and deposited each warranty bond with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor on February 4, 1998. After the organization of the Plaintiff’s representative meeting, the guaranty creditor of each warranty bond was changed to the Plaintiff’s representative meeting.

The guaranteed amount of the ticket guarantee period included in the main text from February 10, 1998 to February 9, 2001 (3 years) 754,41,940 won on February 10, 1998 to February 9, 1998 to February 9, 1998 to February 18, 2008 to February 9, 2008 to KRW 943,014,930 on the aggregate of KRW 188,602,990.

According to the terms and conditions of each guarantee agreement, the defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association provides that the defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association shall pay the obligation to the guarantee creditor within the coverage of the guaranteed amount due to the failure to perform the claim for the performance of the repair for the defects that occurred within the warranty period after the defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association underwent the inspection of use.

2) In order to perform the obligation to deposit the warranty bond under the above Acts and subordinate statutes with respect to the gold apartment of this case, the defendant gold industry entered into each warranty bond contract with the housing business mutual aid association by setting the warranty period and the guaranteed amount as follows, and deposited it with the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor on February 5, 1998. After which the representative meeting of the plaintiff was organized, the secured creditor of each warranty bond of this case was changed to the representative meeting of the plaintiff.

The guaranteed amount of the ticket guarantee period included in the main text of February 10, 1998 to February 9, 2001 (3 years) 754,411,932 won on February 10, 1998 to February 9, 1998 to February 9, 1998 to February 18, 2008 to February 9, 2008 to KRW 943,014,915 won

According to the terms and conditions of each guarantee contract as above, if the guarantee creditor has notified the defect repair to the defendant gold industry, but has not performed the defect repair, the Housing Business Mutual Aid Association shall pay the defect repair or the cost of defect repair within the limit of the guaranteed amount specified in the letter of guarantee, and the defect that occurred before the usage inspection or after the expiration of the warranty liability period under the attached Table of the Rules on the Management of Multi-Family Housing provides that the defect that occurred

The defendant Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Housing Guarantee") was a corporation established pursuant to Article 47-6 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act amended by Act No. 5908 on February 8, 199, which comprehensively succeeds to all rights and obligations of the Housing Business Mutual Aid Association pursuant to Article 6 (1) of the Addenda of the same Act.

(c) Completion of usage inspection;

Defendant Daewoo Construction, with respect to the instant treatment apartment, was subject to a pre-use inspection on December 27, 1997 on the instant gold apartment, and the Defendant Kuho Construction, with the approval of provisional use on December 27, 1997, had the buyers move into the instant gold apartment, and received a pre-use inspection on February 10, 198.

(d) Request for the occurrence of defects and the performance of repairs;

1) Many defects, such as building outer walls, internal heat, and water leakage, have been discovered in the section for common use and section for exclusive use of the instant treatment apartment and gold apartment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s representative meeting sent the documents requesting repair of defects to the Defendant Daewoo Construction from January 1, 1998, and to the Defendant Gold Industry from April 1998.

2) Although the above Defendants implemented several repair works for the defects in relation to which the repair was requested, each of the apartment buildings in this case has each of the defects stated in the separate sheet of "Treatment Apartment Defect" and "the list of the defects in gold apartment" as of July 2003, and the expenses incurred in repairing the defects are the same as the amount stated in the separate sheet of "repair Costs" as of the above.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 10-56, Gap evidence 13, Eul evidence 14-1 to 4, Eul evidence 14-1 to 11, Eul evidence 13-1 to 11, Eul evidence 13-B or Eul evidence 25, the result of the non-party 1's defect appraisal by the non-party 1 in the court of first instance, the result of the non-party 2's defect appraisal by the court of first instance and the court of first instance, each fact-finding by the non-party 1 in the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Relevant statutes;

◎ 구 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률(2005. 5. 26. 법률 제7502호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 9 (Liability for Warranty) (1) With respect to the liability for warranty of a person who constructs and parcels out a building referred to in Article 1 or 1-2, the provisions of Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

(2) With respect to warranty liability of a seller under paragraph (1), any special agreement which provides for a buyer more disadvantageous than that prescribed by the Civil Act shall be null and void.

ADD.

The special provisions of the Housing Construction Promotion Act on the method and criteria for management of collective housing under Article 6 (Relationship with the Housing Construction Promotion Act) shall be effective as long as it violates this Act and does not infringe on the basic rights of sectional owners.

◎ 구 주택건설촉진법(1999. 2. 8. 법률 제5911호로 개정되기 전의 것)

(14) The project proprietor (including the owner who has constructed the collective housing for the purpose of parcelling-out after obtaining a construction permit under Article 8 of the Building Act) shall be liable to repair the defects of the collective housing under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

(15) Any project undertaker and owner under the provisions of paragraph (14) shall deposit a security deposit for repairing defects, as prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That the same shall not apply to any project undertaker who is the State, local government, the Korea National Housing Corporation

The project undertaker and the owner of a building under paragraph (14) shall, when any serious defect occurs in the portions of proof-proof structures of multi-family housing, be liable for repairing it within the limit of ten years and for compensating for the damage resulting therefrom. In this case, the defect repair period and the scope of defects by structure shall be prescribed by

◎ 구 공동주택관리령(1998. 12. 31. 대통령령 제16069호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 16 (Defect Repairs by Project Undertaker)

(1) The defect repair period for multi-family housing, etc. shall be at least two years in cases of major facilities from the date of usage inspection, and at least one year in cases of other facilities, and the period of classification and scope of major facilities subject to defect repair and other facilities shall be prescribed by Ordinance

(2) When any defects of the collective housing, etc. have occurred within the period under paragraph (1), the occupant, the council of occupants' representatives or the managing body (hereafter in this Article referred to as the "council of occupants' representatives, etc.") may request the project undertaker to repair the said defects, and the project undertaker shall either repair them or notify the council of occupants' representatives, etc. of the defect repair

(5) When the project undertaker has failed to implement the defect repair plan under paragraph (2), or has failed to implement it within the period of receiving the order for defect repair under paragraph (3), the council of occupants' representatives, etc. may directly repair it as the defect repair bond under Article 17 or have a third party execute it by proxy. In such cases, the council of occupants' representatives, etc. shall notify the

Article 16-2 (Defect Repairs of Earthquake-Proof Structure)

(1) The defect repair period by proof-proof structure and the scope of defects under Article 38 (16) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. Defect repair period by load-proof structure;

(a) Plastics or bearing walls (excluding plastic walls, etc. that do not bear weight): Ten years;

(b) Boll, floor, or roof: Five years;

2. Scope of defects;

(a) Where the relevant apartment house is collapsed due to any defect in the portions of proof-proof structures;

(b) Where it is judged that the apartment house is likely to collapse as a result of safety diagnosis under Article 16-3 (1); and

Article 17 (Deposit for Repair of Defects)

(1) Any person who constructs and supplies multi-family housing, etc. shall deposit a warranty bond under the name of the authority for usage inspection with a financial institution designated by the authority for usage inspection, and submit a certificate of deposit to the authority for usage inspection when submitting an application for usage inspection: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the multi-family housing constructed by the housing association under Article 44

(2) When the council of occupants' representatives is organized, the authority for usage inspection shall, without delay, change the name of the deposit of the defect repair bond under paragraph (1) in the name of the relevant council of occupants' representatives, and the council of occupants' representatives shall deposit the defect repair bond in the financial institution for the

(4) The guaranty money for defect repairs under paragraph (1) shall be deposited in cash or as the certificate falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Payment guarantee of a bank;

2. A performance guarantee insurance policy whereby the council of occupants' representatives or the delegated person is the insured.

3. Certificates issued by the construction mutual aid association under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry; and

4. Certificates issued by the housing business mutual aid associations under Article 47-6 of the Act.

◎ 구 공동주택관리규칙(1999. 12. 7. 건설교통부령 제219호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 11 (Period, etc. of Repairing Defects) (1) The classification of facilities and the scope of defects subject to the repair of defects and the period of liability for repairing defects under Article 16 (1) of the Decree shall be as shown in the attached Table 3.

With regard to the scope of defects, attached Table 3 provides that "a defect that may cause harm to the function, aesthetic view or safety of buildings or facilities, etc. due to cracks, fest, sashing, sashing, subsidence, damage, collapse, collapse, leakage, malfunction, failure in operation or functions, attachment or influoring volume or failure in connection with earth and facilities, etc." shall be classified into 57 items of multi-family housing construction works in 17 areas, and the period of liability for defect repair of 18 items, such as earth and sand construction during the site preparation work, shall be one year, 2 years, and 3 years, and 5 items of defect repair liability of 5 items, such as reinforced concrete construction during the site preparation work, shall be three years).

◎ 구 주택법(2005. 5. 26. 법률 제7520호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 46 (Maintenance of Defects) (1) The project undertaker (including the owner of a building who has constructed the collective housing aiming at parcelling-out after obtaining a construction permit under Article 8 of the Building Act and the work executor who has performed the acts under Article 42 (2) 2; hereafter in this Article the same shall apply) shall be liable to repair the defects of collective housing under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree

(3) When significant defects have occurred in the portions of proof-proof structures of multi-family housing, the project proprietor under paragraph (1) shall be liable to repair them within the extent of ten years from the date of usage inspection (referring to the date of approval for temporary use, where approval for temporary use has been obtained for the whole multi-family housing within the housing complex) and to compensate for losses incurred thereby. In such cases, the defect repair period by structure

◎ 구 주택법시행령(2005. 9. 16. 대통령령 제19053호로 개정되기 전의 것)

(1) The scope of defects that a project proprietor (referring to a project proprietor under the main sentence of Article 46 (2); hereafter the same shall apply in this Article and Articles 60 and 61) is liable for repair under Article 46 (1) of the Act, the period of liability for repairing defects according to the classification of facilities, etc. shall be as specified in attached Table 6.

(2) Where any defects have occurred in multi-family housing within the period of defect repair liability under the provisions of paragraph (1), the occupant, the council of occupants' representatives, the management body or the management body organized under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereafter referred to as the "council of occupants' representatives, etc." in this Article) may request the project owner

◎ 집합건물의 소유 및 관리에 관한 법률(2005. 5. 26. 법률 7502호로 개정된 것)

The special provisions of the Housing Act concerning methods and standards for managing collective housing shall be effective unless they conflict with this Act and thus infringe on the basic rights of sectional owners: Provided, That the liability for warranty of collective housing and repair of defects shall be governed by the provisions of Article 46 of the Housing Act.

◎ 주택법(2005. 5. 26. 법률 7520호로 개정된 것)

Article 46 (Liability for Warranty, Repair of Defects, etc.)

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, when any defect prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as rupture, subsidence, damage, etc. due to a mistake in construction, has occurred within the warranty liability period prescribed by Presidential Decree, from the date of approval for the use of collective housing (referring to the date of approval for temporary use, where approval for temporary use has been obtained for the whole collective housing within a housing complex) or from the date of approval for the use of collective housing under Article 18 of the Building Act, to the date of inspection for the use of collective housing (referring to the date of approval for temporary use, where approval for temporary use has been obtained for the whole collective housing within a housing complex) or from the date of approval for the use of collective housing under Article 18 of the Building Act to the extent of 10 years for each load, subsidence, damage, etc. due to a mistake in construction within the warranty liability period prescribed by Presidential Decree, the defect shall be repaired at the request of

(3) When any serious defects have occurred in the portions of proof-proof structures of collective housing within the period of warranty liability under paragraph (1), the project undertaker shall be liable to compensate for the damages incurred due to the occurrence of defects.

Addenda (Law No. 7520, May 26, 2005)

(Transition Measures concerning Warranty Liability and Repair of Defects) The provisions of Article 46 shall apply to the usage inspection under Article 29 of the Housing Act or the approval for use under Article 18 of the Building Act prior to the enforcement of this Act and the liability for warranty of defects of the collective housing that have obtained approval for use under Article 18 of the same Act

◎ 주택법 시행령(2005. 9. 16. 대통령령 제19053호로 개정된 것)

Article 59 (Defect Repairs by Project Undertaker)

(1) The scope of defects for which a project undertaker (referring to a project undertaker under the main sentence of Article 46 (2); hereafter the same shall apply in this Article and Articles 60 and 61) is responsible for repair under Article 46 (1) of the Act, the defect liability period for each load-proof structure and each installation work, etc. shall be as listed in the Tables 6 and 7.

(2) "Persons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as occupants, etc. of multi-family housing" in Article 46 (1) of the Act means occupants, the council of occupants' representatives, the management body, or the management body organized under the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereafter referred to as the "council of occupants' representatives, etc.

[Attachment 6] Scope of Defects subject to Defect Repairs and Liability Period by Facility Construction (Related to Article 59(1))

1. Scope of defects;

A defect that may cause harm to the function, tolerance, or safety of a building or facility due to rupture, rupture, collapse, damage, collapse, leakage, operation or failure of function due to a mistake in the construction work, a defect that may cause harm to the function, tolerance, or safety of the building or facility due to a defect in the construction work.

2. Liability period for defect liability by facility works (hereinafter referred to as "liability period");

[Attachment 7] The scope of defects subject to defect repair by load-bearing structure and the warranty liability period (related to Article 59(1))

1. Scope of defects;

(a) Where the relevant apartment house is collapsed due to any defect in the portions of proof-proof structures;

(b) Where it is judged that the apartment house is likely to collapse as a result of safety diagnosis under Article 62 (3).

2. Defect repair period by load-proof structure;

(a) Plastics or bearing walls (excluding plastic walls that do not bear force): Ten years;

(b) Boll, floor, and roof: 5 years.

3. As to the plaintiff's representative meeting's claim on the defendant's construction and gold industry

A. Determination as to the principal safety defense of Defendant Treatment Construction

With respect to the plaintiff's representative council's claim for the payment of damages in lieu of the defect repair of the treatment apartment in this case against the defendant's construction, the above defendant asserts that this part of the lawsuit is unlawful since the plaintiff's representative council is not qualified as a party to claim damages in lieu of the defect repair as above. However, in the performance lawsuit, the party who asserts that he/she has the right to claim performance is qualified as the plaintiff. Thus,

B. Judgment on the merits

1) The plaintiff representative meeting

The representative meeting of the plaintiff is entitled to seek damages in lieu of defect repairs from the seller and the business entity, based on Article 46 of the Housing Act (Article 38 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act), or based on Article 9 (1) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings (hereinafter "the Aggregate Buildings Act"). Thus, the plaintiff's representative meeting is obligated to pay the plaintiff's representative expenses for the compensation of damages equivalent to the cost of repair of the whole defects of the treatment apartment of this case, including the amount of KRW 1,789,965,976, and the amount of the defendant's gold industry to pay KRW 1,096,731,830 equivalent to the cost of repair of the entire defects of the gold apartment of this case.

2) Determination

Unless there are special circumstances, the right to delay of defects under Article 9 of the Multi-Family Building Act belongs to a sectional owner of an aggregate building (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da47733, Feb. 11, 2003). Although Article 46 of the Housing Act and Article 59 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act grant the council of occupants' representatives the right to request the repair of defects to the business owner of the multi-family housing, the purpose of this right is to set the criteria for prompt repair of defects as a warranty bond by determining the procedure, method and period of repairing defects in the multi-family housing at an administrative level (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7616, Apr. 9, 2004). The council of occupants' representatives cannot be deemed to grant the right to delay of defects as well as the right to request the repair of defects to the business owner. Thus, the council of occupants' representatives can request the repair of defects in the multi-family housing, and it cannot be deemed to have the right to claim compensation for damages in lieu thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2006286Da6464, Mar.

Therefore, under the premise that the representative meeting of the plaintiff directly has the right to claim damages in lieu of defect repairs based on Article 46 of the Housing Act and Article 59 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act or based on Article 9 (1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act for the defendant treatment construction and gold industry, the claim against the above Defendants by the representative meeting of the plaintiff is without merit without further review.

4. Determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant Gold Industry Co., Ltd. in the preliminary Plaintiff Republic of Korea (Attached Plaintiff List 988)

In a lawsuit in which the State is a party (hereinafter referred to as the “State lawsuit”), the Minister of Justice shall represent the State (Article 2 of the Act on Litigation in which the State is a Party). The Minister of Justice may designate an employee of the Ministry of Justice, a public-service advocate as prescribed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the Public-Service Advocates Act, or appoint an attorney-at-law as a legal representative and have him conduct the state litigation (Article 3(1) and (4) of the same Act). The said authority of the Minister of Justice is delegated to the Prosecutor General, the chief public prosecutor of the high public prosecutor’s office or the chief public prosecutor of the district public prosecutor’s office as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Article 2 of the same Act). Where the chief of each public prosecutor’s office designates a litigation performer

According to the above Acts and subordinate statutes, a lawsuit against Defendant Geum Industrial Co., Ltd. in the Republic of Korea is the state litigation, and the litigation acts relating thereto are conducted directly by the Minister of Justice, who is a legal representative, or only the litigation performer or attorney-at-law appointed or appointed by the Minister of Justice or the chief of the public prosecutor's office delegated with the authority. However, Nonparty 3, an attorney-at-law, who is the first instance court attorney in the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea, was delegated by the chief of the 1989 unit belonging to the Ministry of National Defense, and was not delegated with the authority by the Minister of Justice or the chief of the public prosecutor's office delegated with the authority ( there is no evidence to acknowledge that the litigation attorney in the court and the chief of the public prosecutor

Therefore, the above preliminary lawsuit brought by the legal representative delegated by a person who does not have the authority to represent the State is unlawful as it lacks the requirements for the lawsuit.

5. As to the claims of the remaining conjunctive plaintiffs for Defendant Treatment Construction and Guarantee Industry

A. Determination on the claim for damages in lieu of defect repair

1) Acts and subordinate statutes applicable to the claim for damages replacing the defect repair of a sectional owner

A) Constitutional Court Order 2005HunGa16 dated July 31, 2008

As seen in the above relevant statutes, the Housing Act and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings separately provide for the warranty liability of apartment houses before the Housing Act was amended on May 26, 2005. However, during the warranty liability period, the Housing Act and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings stipulate the warranty liability period of 10 years for the defects in the portions of proof-proof structure and 5 years for the defects in the facilities and 1 to 3 years for the defects in the construction of facilities, and the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings applied mutatis mutandis the Civil Act Article 667 or 671 for the defects in the construction of facilities.

In this situation, it is unclear whether the Act is applicable to the warranty liability of multi-family housing, and the legislators revised the Housing Act on May 26, 2005, so that Article 46 A of the Housing Act on the warranty liability of multi-family housing and the warranty liability of defects are given priority to the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings. Accordingly, the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act on the basis that the warranty liability period is five or ten years for multi-family housing and in the case of the construction of other facilities, one or three years for multi-family housing (the extension of the warranty liability period to March 16, 207).

In particular, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Housing Act provides that "liability for warranty or repair of defects for which a pre-use inspection or approval for use has been obtained prior to the enforcement of the Act" and applied the amended Housing Act on May 26, 2005 without asking whether the defect occurred prior to or after the enforcement of the amended Housing Act. However, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 3 of the Addenda to the said Housing Act on July 31, 2008. The fact that the apartment house of this case was subject to the pre-execution of the amended Housing Act on February 10, 198, which was the pre-execution of the amended Housing Act, is as seen earlier. Therefore, the amended Housing Act on May 26, 2005 is not applicable to this case.

B) Application to the instant case

According to the relevant provisions of each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, the occupant, the council of occupants' representatives or the management body of multi-family housing may request the project owner to repair the defects that have occurred within the period of one to ten years according to the contents of the construction and the type of defects. In particular, in the event that the defects of the proof-proof structure are likely to collapse or collapse the multi-family housing, the project owner may request the project owner to repair the defects and claim compensation for the damages of the defects that have occurred within the period of five or ten years.

However, considering that Article 6 of the Addenda to the Act on the Management Method and Criteria of Aggregate Buildings provides that it is effective only to the extent that it does not infringe on the basic rights of the sectional owners because it goes against the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings, and the related provisions, such as the Housing Construction Promotion Act, stipulate only the period of occurrence of defects and the scope of defects, and do not entirely stipulate the right to claim damages in lieu of defect repair, it is an administrative standard that sets forth the criteria for prompt repair of defects as a warranty bond and the management authority of the apartment house or the council of occupants' representatives that did not have any special legal relations with the project owner as well as the tenant, and therefore, the sectional owners of each apartment building such as the apartment building in this case still have the right to claim damages in lieu of defect repair in accordance with Articles 67 through 671 of the Civil Act, which are applied mutatis mutandis under Article 9(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings.

2) The occurrence of liability for damages against the conjunctive plaintiffs

According to the above facts and the above legal principles, in case where the conjunctive plaintiffs, who are the owners of each apartment of this case, exercise the damage liability in lieu of defect repair against the defendant Daewoo Construction and Gold Industry, the warranty liability period of 10 years is applied to all regardless of the type and content of the construction, and all of the defects recognized above are found to have occurred within 10 years from the inspection date of the usage of each apartment of this case (Therefore, since the first or second defects in each apartment of this case occurred within 1 year from the inspection date of the usage of each apartment of this case as the warranty liability period of the Housing Act, 1 year from the inspection date of the usage of the apartment of this case, 5 years from the internal proof structure, 10 years from the 10th defect, 5 years from the 10th defect of the 10th defect and the 10th defect are not likely to collapse or collapse the apartment of this case, it cannot be accepted for the aforementioned reasons). Accordingly, the owners of each of the above conjunctive apartment of this case are obliged to pay the above 91 through 484, 51 through 984.

3) Limitation on liability

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the above Defendants performed the defect repair construction work on several occasions upon the request of the Plaintiff’s representative meeting; (b) each apartment of this case is deemed to have partly caused the defect due to the lapse of more than six years from the date of the usage inspection to the date of the appraisal of the defect; and (c) the possibility that the defect has been expanded due to the mistake in the use management of the Plaintiff’s side, it seems that imposing the above Defendants to bear all the cost of defect repair as a result of the defect repair in this case is unfair or harsh in light of the principle of fairness or the principle of good faith, and thus, the scope of damages to be compensated by the above Plaintiffs should be limited, but the above Defendants should be determined at 60% of the cost of defect repair in consideration of the aforementioned various circumstances.

4) Determination of the parties’ assertion on the scope of defects, etc.

A) Defendant Treatment Construction and Gold Industry asserts that, in the case of a defect in a section of exclusive ownership, there is no proof as to the existence of the defect in the household that did not individually investigate the defect, it cannot respond to the claim for damages equivalent to the cost of repairing the defect in the section of exclusive ownership of the said household.

In a case where the design and construction method of each household is to be the same as that of multi-family housing, if it appears that the defect is not limited to a specific household, but is to be a type of defect which appear to have been evenly appearing due to the design or construction error common to all the households, the method of calculating the amount of damages of the former household shall also be permitted within a reasonable scope. Considering the result of the appraisal of the defect by Nonparty 1 in the first instance trial and the purport of the first instance court's inquiry as to the above appraiser in the first instance trial, the whole purport of arguments is as follows: (a) the degree of about 41% in the case of the treatment apartment in this case; (b) the existence of defects by the appraiser in the case of the gold apartment in each item; and (c) the existence of defects by each investigation household in consideration of common defects; (d) the existence of defects by each investigation household in each item and the cost of appraisal of the defect in each of the same household in this case can be seen to have been the same as the whole household after the appraisal of the defect in each of this case.

B) Defendant Treatment Construction asserts that the part constructed in accordance with the design drawing (the exposure to the apartment dam 24A TYPE fire risk) is not defective, and that the above Defendant does not have any repair liability for it. However, in the case of the instant treatment apartment, the above Defendant, who is the project undertaker, voluntarily designed and constructed the construction, and thus, the above Defendant shall be liable for the warranty for it even if any defect occurred due to the design error.

C) Defendant Treatment Construction and Gold Industry asserts that the instant defect appraisal results on the cracks inside and outside of each apartment unit, the ceiling slocks and beams of underground parking lots, the cracks and water leakages of underground common utility conduits, and the internal cracks inside and outside of each household include not only a defect of less than 0.3mm in width, but also a defect of excessive calculation of the cost of remuneration by wrong selection of repair method.

However, in full view of the appraisal results of the non-party 1 of the first instance trial and the fact-finding results of the above appraiser at the court of first instance, the above appraiser can be acknowledged as having included not less than 0.2mm in the scope of defects only when he investigates rupture based on not less than 0.3mm at the time of the appraisal of the defect in this case and judged to be structural rupture. Even if ruptures are less than 0.3mm, the ruptures entered into the same rupture with the rupture, and the ruptures of the ruptures of the ruptures of the ruptures of the ruptures of the rupture and the ruptures of the ruptures of the inside, and even if ruptures of less than 0.3mm, it is necessary to repair the apartment itself as long as the ruptures of the apartment. In addition, according to the above evidence, the appraiser in the first instance can not accept the above fact of construction.

D) Defendant Gold Industry asserts that the crack of the outer wall on at least seven floors above the ground as a result of the first instance trial’s appraisal is not a result of a survey conducted by the appraiser, but a presumption merely merely a result of a survey conducted by the appraiser, and that the part of the defect should be excluded.

According to the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance with respect to the appraiser non-party 1, the above appraiser could not use the frode of the outer wall of this case at the time of investigating the frode of the gold apartment, and it is acknowledged that the frode of the outer wall part of the first and the second floor was calculated by applying the same amount to the entire floor outer wall by calculating the average quantity per floor and applying the same amount to the entire floor outer wall. However, in the defect investigation report (Evidence No. 11) prepared before the appraisal of the first instance, the quantity calculated means that the frode of the gold apartment outer wall part of this case was measured as total 2,96.8m, clothes non-party 1,021.4m in total, and the above values are not accepted solely on the ground that the frode of the outer wall part including the frode of the outer wall part of this case was no more than the actual average value of the outer wall calculated in light of the fact that there is a defect calculated in the part of the outer wall of this case.

E) Defendant Daewoo Construction and Gold Industry asserts that it is improper to adopt the entire Doz as a repair method of the crack of outer walls on the apartment of this case, because the Housing Act and the Housing Act stipulate that the management authority of apartment buildings shall implement the front Doz of the outer wall with the long-term repair appropriations, since the Housing Act and the Housing Act stipulate that the front Doz of the outer wall should be implemented.

The outer wall of each apartment of this case is not only a number of cracks generated, but also the cracks are scattered in the whole outer wall, and if only the cracks are sealed after the repair of defects, it causes aesthetic problems, such as the color and pattern different from the remaining parts (the result of the appraisal of defects by Nonparty 1 in the first instance trial, the result of the appraisal of defects in the appraiser Nonparty 1 in the first instance trial), and the cost of reconstructing the whole outer wall should also be included in the cost of repairing defects. Although the Housing Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act prescribe that the apartment management authority should accumulate the front door once every five years with respect to the outer wall of the building, internal ceiling, inner wall, internal wall, and stairs in accordance with the long-term repair plan, it cannot be said that the above Defendants are exempted from or mitigated from the liability of repairing defects liability.

The direct material cost and direct labor cost required for the repair of "heat inside and outside of each apartment unit" shall be as follows: The construction cost is calculated based on the results of the fact inquiry of the appraiser Nonparty 1 in the court of first instance on July 10, 2004; Presidential Decree No. 20367, Apr. 476, 62; Presidential Decree No. 20388, Jun. 22, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 20358, Jul. 3, 200

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 직접재료비 직접노무비 콘크리트 균열 보수 33,295,239 30,673,791 콘크리트 피복 보수 4,853,520 2,640,960 콘크리트 치핑 15,498 991,746 조적조인트 균열 보수 3,951,600 4,238,424 무늬코트 446,970 2,066,825 외벽 전체 도장 9,298,212 45,857,091 합 계: 51,861,039 86,468,837

The details of the material cost and labor cost for the rupture repair works inside and outside the treatment apartment.

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 직접재료비 직접노무비 콘크리트 균열 보수 22,743,684 20,952,996 콘크리트 피복 보수 9,630,000 5,240,000 콘크리트 치핑 30,750 1,967,750 조적조인트 균열 보수 4,561,250 4,892,325 외벽 전체 도장 9,523,668 46,968,999 합 계: 46,489,352 80,022,070

Table 2> Details of material cost and labor cost for the rupture repair works inside and outside the gold apartment

본문내 포함된 표 구분 공사 항목 (1)재료비 (2)노무비 (3)경비 순공사원가 (1+2+3) 일반관리비 이윤 공급가액 부가가치세 총공사비 직접재료비 직접노무비 간접노무비 기계 경비 산재보험료 안전관리비 기타경비 ？ ？ 직접노무비*14.1% ？ (직접노무비+간접노무비)*2.9% (재료비+직접노무비)*1.81% (재료비+노무비)*5.3% 순공사원가*5.5% (노무비+경비+일반관리비)*10% 순공사원가+일반관리비+이윤 공급가액*10% 공급가액+부가가치세 대우아파트 콘크리트 균열 보수 33,295,239 30,673,791 4,325,005 ？ 1,014,965 1,157,839 3,619,584 74,086,423 4,074,753 4,486,594 82,647,770 8,264,777 90,912,547 콘크리트 피복 보수 4,853,520 2,640,960 372,375 ？ 87,387 135,650 416,943 8,506,836 467,876 412,119 9,386,831 938,683 10,325,514 콘크리트 치핑 15,498 991,746 139,836 ？ 32,816 18,231 60,795 1,258,922 69,241 131,267 1,459,430 145,943 1,605,373 조적조인트 균열 보수 3,951,600 4,238,424 597,618 ？ 140,245 148,239 465,745 9,541,871 524,803 611,507 10,678,182 1,067,818 11,746,000 무늬코트 446,970 2,066,825 291,422 ？ 68,389 45,500 148,677 3,067,783 168,728 278,954 3,515,465 351,546 3,867,011 외벽 전체도장 9,298,212 45,857,091 6,465,850 ？ 1,517,365 998,311 3,265,921 67,402,750 3,707,151 6,181,169 77,291,070 7,729,107 85,020,177 합 계: 51,861,039 86,468,837 12,192,106 - 2,861,167 2,503,771 7,977,665 163,864,585 9,012,552 12,101,610 184,978,747 18,497,875 203,476,622 금호아파트 콘크리트 균열 보수 22,743,684 20,952,996 2,954,372 ？ 693,314 790,910 2,472,506 50,607,782 2,783,428 3,064,753 56,455,962 5,645,596 62,101,559 콘크리트 피복 보수 9,630,000 5,240,000 738,840 ？ 173,386 269,147 827,269 16,878,642 928,325 817,697 18,624,664 1,862,466 20,487,130 콘크리트 치핑 30,750 1,967,750 277,453 ？ 65,111 36,173 120,625 2,497,862 137,382 260,449 2,895,694 289,569 3,185,263 조적조인트 균열 보수 4,561,250 4,892,325 689,818 ？ 161,882 171,110 537,600 11,013,984 605,769 705,850 12,325,604 1,232,560 13,558,164 외벽 전체도장 9,523,668 46,968,999 6,622,629 ？ 1,554,157 1,022,517 3,345,111 69,037,081 3,797,039 6,331,045 79,165,166 7,916,517 87,081,682 합 계: 46,489,352 80,022,070 11,283,112 - 2,647,850 2,289,857 7,303,110 150,035,351 8,251,944 11,179,794 169,467,090 16,946,709 186,413,799

Table 3> The statement of the cost calculation of the equal repair cost for each apartment unit inside and outside of each apartment unit

F) The defendant Daewoo Construction asserts that the above defendant's sales advertisement about the integrated security system is merely an inducement for subscription, and cannot be viewed as the contents of the sales contract for the treatment apartment of this case, so the above defendant does not bear an obligation to construct the integrated security system such as the contents of the above sales advertisement.

It is difficult to view that the sales contract concluded without properly specifying the external form and material of the apartment that is the object of the sales contract is completed as its own, and even if the contents of the sales contract, conditions of the model house, or explanation given by the seller to the buyer around that time, etc. is merely merely an inducement of the offer, it is reasonable to view that the buyer trusted out the specific terms and conditions of the advertisement, that is, the external form and material of the apartment, etc., and in light of social norms, it is about the contents of the advertisement, terms and conditions or explanation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, that is, the seller of the apartment, which can be claimed by the buyer as the content of the contract, and the buyer knew of them. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that there was an implied agreement between the buyer and the buyer to make the sales contract as the content of the sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5812, 5829, 5836, Jun. 1, 207).

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 13, in the sale advertisement for the treatment apartment of this case, the contents of the advertisement are the contents of the contract, and the contents of the contract are trust in light of social norms, and the buyer knew of the contents of the contract, so the contents of the advertisement are the contents of the sale contract for the treatment apartment of this case, and the contents of the advertisement are the contents of the contract for the sale contract for the treatment apartment of this case, and the defendant Construction is obligated to supply the contents of the above contents of the contract for the sale of the apartment of this case. Therefore, if the construction of the treatment apartment of this case did not cause any damage to the defect repair of the defects, it shall be compensated in lieu of the contents of the contract for sale of this case.

In regard to this, Defendant Daewoo Construction asserts that the amount of damages should be calculated by the difference in the cost of construction because excessive cost is required for repair even though the defects without installation of the integrated unmanned security system are not important defects.However, the integrated unmanned security system functions not only to ensure the safety of the entire apartment complex, but also to reduce the cost of expenses by reducing the cost of expenses. Since the incentive security system for each building currently installed cannot perform the above function and role as originally intended, the above defect is considered as an important defect, and it does not need excessive cost of repair. Therefore, the above defendant must compensate for damages equivalent to the cost of defect repair.

G) Preliminary Plaintiffs 1 through 543 seek the amount of damages for the defects in which the greenhouse-projected vibration control material was constructed in some sections ( approximately 10cm in length) from the bottom end of the floor and the bottom end of the floor and the extension of the vibration control material to the wall string, and then the construction cost to close down the slope.

However, there is no material to verify which degree or decrease the noise and vibration effect between floors by executing construction with about 10§¯ of 10cm above, and rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, if the non-construction part is built with complete walls, it does not have any particular effect on the effect of preventing actual vibration, and it does not have any big inconvenience in terms of its function even using the present state. However, it is required to repair the above defects as alleged by the plaintiff (the result of the appraisal of defects by Non-party 1 in the first instance trial), so the above defects are not important defects and require excessive repair costs, and thus, the difference between construction cost of 24A-type households (101, 102, 103, 104, 104, 1064, 1064, 205, 308, 406, 305, 406, 305, 406, 406, 206, 306, 5, 4, 4, 106, 4, etc.

H) Preliminary Plaintiffs 544 to 987, 989 to 1128 are seeking 142,59,000 won in total on three occasions each time for defective defects, such as PCs (PCs and recretes) structural mats of the gold apartment in this case, and the 140,866,00 won in total.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the appraisal by Nonparty 2 of the trial court, the remuneration corporation for the sum of the above sum 26,798,165 won per time when calculating the construction cost for the above portion of the defect based on July 2003, which is the time when the above plaintiffs requested the repair of the defect. As such, when calculating the construction cost for the above portion of the defect based on July 2003, the time when the above plaintiffs demanded the repair of the defect, the amount calculated at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case is recognized as the amount of damages pursuant to the one-time method that deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5% per month from the above 3-time remuneration construction cost. The calculation of the present portion of the three-time remuneration construction cost is the sum 26,798,165 won as shown in the following table.

[Calculation of Free Price]

203-07-29 201-12-3125,950,00 won 101,643,610 won 203-07-29 201-29 125,643,610 won 1674,260,120 won 203-07-29 2022-29 202-29 202-3125,950,00 won 233,894,435 won: 226,798,165 won

I) The determination of the other allegations was written in the column of “infinite” in the separate sheet of treatment apartment defects and “a list of gold apartment defects.”

5) Scope of damages

A) Preliminary Plaintiffs 1 through 543: ① 80,936,819 won in total, total, the cost of repairing defects in common areas of the treatment apartment in this case (i) + KRW 372,991,207 in 1 year + KRW 4,082,301 in 2 year + KRW 118,418,732 in 3 year + KRW 5,018,484 in 5 year + KRW 96,949,473 in 10 + KRW 203,476,62 in 10) multiplied by their respective shares (the same shall apply to each corresponding amount in the column of “the cost of repairing defects in each common area of the treatment apartment apartment” in the attached Form) and ② The damages amount corresponding to 60% of the total amount of expenses for repairing defects in common areas of each household owned by each party (the same shall apply to each corresponding amount in each column of the above list), and the damages amount corresponding to each column of Defendant Construction.

B) Preliminary Plaintiffs 54 through 987, 989 through 1128 are ① 734,56,218 won totaling the cost of repairing the entire common areas of the gold apartment of this case (i.e., KRW 109,260,269 won prior to the inspection of use + KRW 3,098,592 won for one year + KRW 54,561,573 won for two years + KRW 33,952,952,274 won for three years + KRW 47,269,711 won for five years + KRW 186,413,79) multiplied by their respective shares (the same shall apply to the amount corresponding to the column for common use area of the gold apartment of this case) and ② the damages amount of each household’s section for exclusive use (the same shall apply to each of the amount corresponding to the column for the pertinent section for common use area, and the damages amount corresponding to the pertinent column for Defendant’s damages.

6) Defendant Franchising that the industry is not responsible for the completion of five-year commercial extinctive prescription in the case of damages liability for defects prior to pre-use inspection.

However, since the damage claim in lieu of the defect repair for the seller of a sectional owner is a statutory liability recognized under Article 9 of the Aggregate Buildings Act (the sectional owner, who is not the seller of a sectional ownership, can also be held liable for the defect repair), the ten-year extinctive prescription is applied in accordance with Article 162(1) of the Civil Act. The lawsuit of this case filed on July 29, 2003, which is obviously before the lapse of 10 years from the date of inspection for use, and the above argument is without merit.

7) Sub-determination

Defendant Daewoo Construction sought payment of KRW 10,00,00 from August 7, 200 after the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to Plaintiff 1 or 543 as stated in the " treatment apartment unit defect repair cost" and each of the above amounts to KRW 100,000 from August 7, 2003, and from September 16, 2004 after the last delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to each of the remaining amounts (the above plaintiffs also claim damages for delay from the day immediately after the last delivery of the complaint of this case to the above amounts) from September 16, 2004 (the above plaintiffs also claim damages for delay from the day immediately after the last delivery of the complaint of this case to the point at the time of filing the lawsuit of this case, each of them sought payment of KRW 100,000 according to the result of appraisal, and thereafter thereafter, extended the claim of this case to the above defendant by extending it from September 9, 2004 to September 2, 2000.

The defendant Geum-ho industry is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 544 through 987, and 989 through 1128 the amount corresponding to the "cost for repairing the defects of gold apartment units" in the attached Form 100,000 of the corresponding amount and each of the above amounts, from August 7, 2003, after the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and from September 9, 2004, the copy of the application for extension of the claim of this case from September 16, 2004, which is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the above defendant's obligation from September 16, 2004 to February 3, 2009, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 20% per annum as stipulated in the above Special Cases.

B. Determination as to the claim of consolation money added in the trial of the party

Preliminary Plaintiffs 1 through 987, 989 through 1128 asserted that, even upon receiving a request for repair of the defects of each apartment of this case, the obligation to compensate for damages equivalent to the repair obligation or the repair cost was delayed, so that the above Plaintiffs could not exercise full property rights to each apartment of this case, thereby causing mental damage. Thus, they are liable to pay 1,850,000 won per one (57 months from the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit) to September 37, 2006.

However, in general, in cases where property damage occurs due to the nonperformance of contractual duties, such mental damage that the contracting party received shall be deemed to have been recovered by compensating for property damage. As such, there are special circumstances that the compensation for property damage may not be recovered by itself, and where the other party knew or could have known such circumstance, consolation money for mental damage may be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da18959, Dec. 13, 2007, etc.). Considering that the above Defendants performed several repair works in response to the request for repair of defects in each apartment of this case, considering that the above Defendants performed several repair works in response to the request for repair of defects in each apartment of this case, it is difficult to deem that the above Plaintiffs suffered irrecoverable mental damage not recovered by the compensation for property damage, and there is no special circumstance to acknowledge this portion of the claim in this case.

6. As to claims against Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association and Korea Housing Guarantee by the Plaintiff’s Representative Meeting

(a) Occurrence of obligation to pay warranty bonds;

According to the above-mentioned facts, relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the provisions of the terms and conditions attached to each of the warranty contracts of this case, the Plaintiff Representative Meeting, the guarantee creditor, the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association, after the date of inspection for the repair of defects pursuant to each of the above warranty contracts with the Defendant Treatment Construction, is obligated to pay the repair costs for the defects incurred in the instant treatment apartment within the defect liability period prescribed by the old Decree and the Rules on the Management of Multi-Family Housing within the warranty liability period, and the Defendant Housing Guarantee is obligated to pay the repair costs for the defects incurred in the instant gold apartment within the warranty liability period prescribed by the old Rules on the Management of Multi-Family Housing after the date of inspection for the repair of defects pursuant to

Meanwhile, in a case where only the warranty period is set without setting the contents of the defect to be guaranteed under the guarantee contract, such as each of the instant warranty contracts, the defect guaranteed under the guarantee contract refers to all the defects within the warranty period that occurred within the warranty period (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da63728, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.).

(b) Scope of obligation to pay deposits;

(i) the costs of repair of defects recognized as the subject of the guarantee;

A) Among the items of "the Section for Common Use" in the annexed list of "the Section for Common Use", each error described in (1), (2), (3), (10), (2), (2), (2), (9), and (10), among the items of "the Section for Common Use", (1), (2), (2), (9), and (10), among the items of "the Section for Common Use" in the annexed list of "the Section for Common Use", (1), (2), (5), (6), (10), (14), among the items of "the Section for Common Use", each error described in (1), (3), (4), and (4) among the items of "the Section for Common Use" is considered to be included in the defect subject to the warranty under the previous Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing and the Rules on the Management of Multi-Family Housing after the date of inspection for Use.

B) Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association pays not only 1 to 543 households owned by Plaintiff 1 to 543 but also 687 costs within the scope of guarantee for the defect repair of the entire 687 households. As to “(1) defective construction of each 24A-type interim household unit” (=232,426 x 378 x 368 x 46) 24A- total of 71,409,366 x 366 x 196 x 46 x 166 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 46 x 36 x 36 x 46 x 5 x 24 x 24 x ;

C) The Defendant’s Housing Guarantee shall, upon the Plaintiff’s representative meeting, pay not only the ancillary Plaintiff 54 to 1128 but also the cost of repairing the entire 687 households within the scope of guarantee. As to the defective construction of the walls of each household, “(1) 93,56,691 won (i.e., 230,849 won x 459 households x 249 households x 256,284 won (i.e., 356,203 x 228 households) in total 174,780,975 won, and (iii) in relation to the defective repair of the walls of not less than 16,56,97 in the attached list of the defect in gold apartment, the Defendant shall be paid the remainder of the above 24A units x 16,539,975 won in total x 16539,975 won in total, and 295,7595 won in total.

2) Defects not recognized as subject to guarantee

A) Each error in (6), (14), (15), (3), (4), (5), (7), (14), (15), and (15), among the items of “the section for common use” in the annexed list of “the section for common use”, and each defect in (9), (16), (18), (21, (22), and (4) among the items of “the section for common use” in the annexed list of “the section for common use” in the annexed list of “the section for common use” is not included in (9), (16), (18), (21, (22), and (2) of “the section for common use”, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a defect that may cause harm to the function, aesthetic, or safety of buildings or facilities due to any error in construction (see each of the above sub-sections).

B) Of the “the Section for Common Use” list in the annexed Form “the Section for Common Use,” (4), (5), (7), (8), (11), (12), (12), (13), (13), (2), (4), (4), (4), (6), (8), (10) through (13), (17), (17), (13), (15), (17), (19), (23, (12), (5), (7), (7), (7), (9), and (3), and (5), (7, (9), (9), (10), (10), (11, (11, and (7), and (11), and (7) of the “the Section for Common Use” list, there is no evidence to acknowledge that any defect has occurred after the date of inspection for use.

C) There is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the items in (9), (16), (19), (2), (20), (2), and (20), (25), and (8) of the items in (i) “the section for common use” in (i) “the section for common use” in (ii) “the section for common use” in (iv) “the section for common use” in (v) “the separate section for common use,” and (v) “the section for exclusive use,” in attached Form 1 “the former Decree on Management of Multi-Family Housing,” and (v) of “the Rules on Management of Multi-Family Housing,” has occurred within the respective warranty liability period. In particular, it is insufficient to recognize that the above defects occurred within the respective warranty liability period. In addition, even if Nonparty 2’s appraisal results, it is not recognized that the defect has occurred for the first time after three years have already elapsed since the appraisal period of Nonparty 2’s appraiser, the defect is not subject to guarantee.

3) Determination of the parties’ assertion

A) The Defendant’s Housing Guarantee asserts that the repair liability is recognized only when it is determined that the apartment house might collapse or collapse, for the defect repair liability period of five and ten years, the defect repair liability period of which is the five and ten years. The Defendant’s Housing Guarantee asserts that the defect of the gold apartment of this case, among the defect of this case, the liability period of which is five and ten years, cannot be deemed to have reached the degree, should be excluded.

However, the purport of each of the instant warranty contracts is not only to guarantee the repair of defects that occurred during the period of defect repair under Article 43-5 (1) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16283, Apr. 30, 199) but also to guarantee the repair of defects in the apartment-family housing for which the proprietor of the said apartment-family housing association may perform the duty of defect repair and long-term defect repair, and to guarantee the repair of defects that occurred during the period of the duty of defect repair under Article 16 of the former Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16069, Dec. 31, 1998). The purport of the instant warranty contract is to stipulate that the maintenance of defects in the apartment-family housing shall be limited to 10 to 5 years, and that the maintenance of defects in the apartment-family housing shall not be limited to 10 to 16 years old Ordinance of the Housing Construction Promotion Act.

B) The Plaintiff’s representative meeting asserts that among the terms and conditions attached at the time of entering into each of the instant warranty contracts, the provisions that exempt the said Defendants from the liability to guarantee the defects prior to the inspection are invalid as they unfairly reduce and reduce the warranty liability under the Housing Act. However, each of the instant warranty contracts entered into with the Defendant Housing Guarantee or the Defendant Construction Mutual Aid Association is for the purpose of guaranteeing the repair of defects arising after the completion of each of the instant apartment construction inspection, which is a warranty liability under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act, and is for the purpose of guaranteeing the repair of defects arising after the completion of each of the instant apartment construction inspection. Thus, the said assertion that the said provisions are invalid as they unfairly reduce the

C. Sub-decision

1) Of the defects subject to the instant apartment management, the cost of repairing defects for the period of one year, two years, and three years under the former Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing (i.e., KRW 396,923,628 + KRW 118,418,732 + + KRW 5,018,484). The period of the defect repair liability is five years, and the cost of repairing defects for the period of ten years is KRW 320,916,307 (i.e., KRW 117,439,685 + KRW 203,476,476,622). If the amount of damages is limited to the amount of damages in lieu of the defect repair for the same reason as the aforementioned legal principles restrict the liability of the Defendant Construction, the guaranteed amount shall be 1,2,312,316,216,405,360,475,2965,2965,2967,465,675).

2) Of the defects subject to the instant warranty, the costs of repairing defects for one year, two years, and three years under the former Decree on the Management of Multi-Family Housing (=234,503,07 won + 54,224,919 won + 107,154,109 won + 254,857,423 won in total (=68,443,624 won + 186,413,799 won in total). Since the period of the defect repair liability is five years and ten years, the costs of repairing defects are 254,857,423 won in total (i.e., 68,443,624 won + 186,413,799 won in total). The guaranteed amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s representative should be 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 27 years, 237, 254, 295, 25365 won in total (i).

3) Therefore, with respect to the plaintiff representative meeting, ① the defendant construction mutual aid association's total amount of KRW 50,819,496 (=312,216,506 + 18,602,90) and its total of KRW 110,00,00 from August 7, 200 to the last 390,819,496 as to the amount of KRW 200 per annum from the 30th day after the delivery of the complaint of this case to the 40th day after September 9, 204 to the 20th day after the above 30th day after the above application for extension of claim of KRW 40,90,00,000 as to the above amount of KRW 20,000,000 per annum from the 206th day after the above 3th day after the above application for extension of claim of this case to the 3th day after the above 40th day after the above judgment of this case.

7. Conclusion

Since the plaintiff's representative council's claims against the defendant construction mutual aid association and the guarantee of housing are well-grounded, each of the remaining claims against the plaintiff's representative council shall be dismissed, without good cause. All of the claims against the defendant's construction and gold industry shall be dismissed. Since the lawsuit against the plaintiff's conjunctive plaintiff's gold industry is unlawful, and the claims against the plaintiff's conjunctive plaintiff 1 through 543 and the conjunctive plaintiff 54 through 987, 989 through 1128 concerning the defendant's gold industry shall be accepted within the extent of each above recognition, and their respective claims shall be dismissed, without reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in part, since the plaintiff's representative and the conjunctive plaintiff 1 through 987, 989 through 1128 and the plaintiff's conjunctive appeal against the plaintiff's conjunctive co-litigants are dismissed, the plaintiff's claims against the plaintiff's conjunctive plaintiff's representative's and the plaintiff's conjunctive co-litigants's remaining claims against the plaintiff's main judgment that cannot be concluded with the plaintiff's all co-litigants's arguments.

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)