Whether Article 670 of the Civil Act, which provides for the exclusion period of one year, applies to a case where a contractor of a building claims the repair of defects (negative)

According to Article 671 of the Civil Code, with respect to the warranty liability of the contractor for the land, building and other structures, the exclusion period is set as a special rule for the exclusion period under Article 670 of the same Act, and Article 670 of the Civil Code provides five or ten years according to the type of structure, and Article 670 of the Civil Code provides that the warranty liability of the contractor for the defect repair claim against the contractor for the building shall not

Articles 670 and 671 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Kim Jong-hee

Yellow dust;

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na47482, 47499 delivered on September 4, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant-Counterclaim”) are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on January 14, 1992, the court below concluded a construction contract with the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant hereinafter) and the defendant to construct the building of this case of this case of the 5th floor above the ground surface above 198 million won on the ground of set-off 87-7, Seoul, Nowon-gu, Seoul, which owned by the plaintiff on January 14, 1992, to construct the building of this case of this case of the 198 million won. The defendant completed the building of this case on June of the same year and delivered the building of this case to the plaintiff, and completed the completion inspection of the building of this case on December 27, 1993. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as alleged in its reasoning in the judgment against the defendant, among damages caused by the tort of this case of this case that the plaintiff et al. paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the remaining amount by offsetting the damages equivalent to the cost of defect repair caused by the non-construction work as design drawing or fraudulent work.

In addition, according to Article 671 of the Civil Act, with respect to the warranty liability of the contractor for land, building and other structures, the exclusion period is five or ten years according to the type of structure, and Article 670 of the Civil Act stipulating the limitation period for the warranty liability of the contractor for the defect liability of the contractor for the building does not apply to the claim for the warranty liability of the contractor for the defect liability of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 87Da2083, 2084, Mar. 8, 198). Thus, in this case where there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the warranty liability of the contractor for the building of this case, the court below's decision that the defendant has the liability for the warranty liability of the contractor for the defect of this case is reasonable in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the warranty liability of the contractor for the construction project of this case, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)