[1] Where excessive expenses are required to repair defects without importance, the method of claiming damages, the scope of ordinary damages, and the method of calculating the amount of damages

[2] The case holding that in a case where a interior wall stone construction work to be executed by a damp construction method was executed by a double-proof construction method, the defect cannot be claimed for damages due to the lack of exchange value or construction cost and there is no difference in exchange value or construction cost

[1] Where there is a defect in the object completed in a contract, the person placing an order may claim damages in lieu of the repair of the defect or the repair of the defect. However, where the defect is not important and excessive expenses are needed at the same time, the person placing an order may not claim damages in lieu of the repair of the defect or the repair of the defect, and only claim compensation for damages caused by the defect. In such a case, unless there are special circumstances, the ordinary damages caused by the defect shall be the difference between the exchange value of the object and the present state of the defect if the person placing an order executes the work without any defect and the exchange value of the defect. Therefore, if it is impossible to calculate the difference in exchange value, it is reasonable to deem that the ordinary damages caused by the defect are the difference in the construction cost and the cost of construction in the state of

[2] The case holding that in a case where a interior wall stone construction work to be executed by a damp construction method was executed by a damp construction method, it constitutes excessive repair costs unless the defect is important, but it cannot be claimed for damages due to defects due to the lack of exchange value or construction costs

[1] Articles 393 and 667 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393 and 667 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da45436 delivered on February 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 881) Supreme Court Decision 95Da30345 delivered on March 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 996)

Newcom Co., Ltd.

Dong-Pest Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na41507 delivered on October 29, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where there is a defect in the object completed in a contract for work, the contractor may claim damages in lieu of the repair of the defect or the repair of the defect to the contractor, but the contractor may not claim damages in lieu of the repair of the defect if the defect is not important and excessive expenses are needed at the same time, and only claim damages incurred due to the defect. In such cases, unless there are special circumstances, the ordinary damages caused by the defect will be the difference between the exchange value of the object and the present state of the defect if the contractor executes the work without any defect (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da45436, Feb. 25, 1997).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff's claim for damages for the expenses of removing the wall that was constructed by a dry construction method and rebuilding by a damp construction method is a claim for damages in lieu of the repair of defects. However, even though the plaintiff agreed to construct the interior walls of the defendant's safe factory (C) building at the time of the contract for the construction of the tin construction in this case by a damp construction method, the tin construction work was constructed by a so-called anti-style construction method that fixing the stone to the wall body without using strong tar in the construction of the tin construction work without using it, and there is no specific difference between the function and role of the wall use or the damage caused by shock from the outside of the construction by a damp construction method. In light of the above reasoning, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above construction cost as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no reason to view that the difference between the above internal wall construction cost and the construction cost cannot be viewed as an offset of the defect in the above construction cost's claim for damages.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)