1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the cases attached to the 7th judgment of the first instance court, following the first instance court’s first instance court’s second instance judgment, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As a result of the appraisal conducted on September 11, 2015, the first instance trial appraiser A stated to the effect that “the defect prior to the inspection of use” is classified into “the defect prior to the inspection of use” by deeming “the defect prior to the inspection of use” as “the defect prior to the inspection of use is not to be executed in accordance with the design documents and other written orders with respect to the defect related to the mixing crowdfunding, or the defect arising from the modified construction.

However, as seen earlier, the defendant's liability for warranty under Article 46 of the amended Housing Act is limited to "when any defects prescribed by Presidential Decree have occurred within the warranty period from the date of inspection or approval for use of multi-family housing". Thus, in the case of pre-use inspection, it is not liable for warranty in the case of pre-use inspection, and the defect that occurred before the inspection for use is not attributable to the construction company's fault in construction work such as failure to construct the part to be constructed in accordance with the design drawing or modification of the construction work such as defective construction work or construction work differently from the design drawing, etc., and the defect that occurred before the inspection for use is referred to as rupture, address, rain, straw, collapse, collapse, leakage, leakage, leakage, operation or malfunction of the house already occurred before the inspection for use. Even if there was a pre-use inspection for construction work such as defective construction or defective construction or modified construction work, it does not constitute a defect that occurred before the completion of the inspection for use.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da7333 Decided January 26, 2007