A. Specific nature of compensation for delay in a contract and motive for the duty to compensate for delay under the aforesaid agreement;

B. Whether Article 670 of the Civil Act applies to the claim for repair of defects against the construction contractor

A. The agreement on compensation for delay of a contract is that the contractor has agreed on the schedule of compensation for delay in the completion of the work. Thus, if the contract for construction work is based on the contractor's completion and completion and delivery of the construction work to the contractor, the contractor's delayed compensation obligation under the above agreement is the time when the contractor completed the completion inspection on the building and delivered it to the contractor. Thus, even if the contractor has completed the completion inspection on the building, the contractor's delayed compensation obligation under the above agreement is the time when the contractor completed the completion inspection on the building and the contractor delivers it to the contractor, even if there is any incomplete part of the building that is not completed as the contents of the work on the delivered building, the contractor shall not

B. According to Article 671 of the Civil Act, with respect to the warranty liability of the contractor for land, a building or any other structure, the exclusion period is set as a special rule for the exclusion period under Article 670 of the same Act, and the exclusion period is set as five or ten years depending on the type of structure, and Article 670 of the Civil Act stipulating the exclusion period for one year for the warranty liability of the contractor for the defect repair claim against the contractor for the

(a) Articles 64, 398(1)(b) and 671 of the Civil Act;

Attorney Yang Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellee et al.

Gwangju High Court Decision, 86Na118, 119 (Counterclaim), July 8, 1987

All the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. We examine the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant: hereinafter only referred to as the Plaintiff)’s ground of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff's additional construction cost incurred from the plaintiff's additional construction work and the amount of damages equivalent to the defect repair cost incurred from the non-construction work (including damages to the non-repair portion) and the non-construction work are separately recognized, and that the plaintiff (the plaintiff Lessee: the defendant hereinafter only) is liable to pay the above additional construction cost to the other party, and that the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the non-construction portion was replaced by the above additional construction cost or the construction cost incurred from the non-construction work in accordance with the design change agreement between the plaintiff .. in the course of the construction work, or when the above building is delivered. The defendant did not appear to have rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above additional construction cost and the non-construction portion were replaced by the above additional construction cost and the construction cost, regardless of the amount different from the above construction cost, and even after examining the record, it cannot be found that there was a separate agreement or a separate agreement of the building city, such as the above assertion.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of a new building in which the plaintiff had entered into a judgment with the defendant, the court below agreed to deduct delay compensation amounting to 3/1000 of the remaining construction cost per day from the construction cost if the plaintiff, who is the contractor, fails to complete the construction within the completion date of the contract, from the construction cost. The plaintiff agreed to deduct the remaining construction cost equivalent to 1,655,518 won from the construction cost per day of delay until December 15, 1982. The plaintiff was unable to complete the construction cost of 2,280,00 won such as septic tanks and the construction cost of 1,65,518 won, such as the purification tank, etc., and the wall-to-spath, the wall-to-spath, the car-to-spath, the cell-to-spath, and the decision of the court below that the plaintiff's delay in the construction was within the limit of 197 days from the completion date of pleadings.

However, the above agreement on delayed compensation among the plaintiffs is that the contractor shall deduct the amount equivalent to 3/1000 of the remaining construction cost per one day of delay from the construction cost when the plaintiff, who is the contractor, has failed to complete the construction by the due date of the completion of the contract, and it does not specify the time of the occurrence of the obligation for delay compensation and the basis for calculating the amount of delay compensation. Thus, the agreement on delayed compensation of the above contract does not specify the time of the occurrence of the obligation for delay compensation and the period for the completion of the contract. Since the contract for the construction work of this case, the contractor's obligation for delay compensation under the above agreement shall be deemed to have agreed upon the completion of the new construction work and the delivery to the contractor after the completion of the completion of the construction work, it is reasonable to interpret that the completion of the contractor's obligation for delay compensation under the above agreement is the time when the contractor completed the completion inspection and delivered it to the contractor. Therefore, even if there is any incomplete part in the delivered building after the completion inspection, it shall not be held liable for delay compensation agreement.

Therefore, as determined by the court below, if the defendant had completed the completion inspection on December 15, 1982 to February 25, 1983 after the completion date of the above construction works, it was delivered by the defendant, as determined by the court below, to the extent that the amount of delayed compensation under the above delayed compensation agreement is only 1,170,655 won (1,65,518 won + 2,280,000 won) in total, 1,170,655 won for the construction works of the purification tank and the underground part (2,280,000 won) and 3,100 x1,00 won for the completion portion of the above underground part after delivery of the building, the court below calculated the amount of delayed compensation under the premise that the defendant is liable to compensate until the building is delivered. Ultimately, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the delayed compensation, or by interpreting the delayed compensation agreement provisions under the above contract, barring any other special circumstance. The allegation points out this error

With respect to the third point:

According to the records, the content of the agreement on the repair of defects under the contract of this case is that the contractor is responsible for the repair of defects that occurred within one year after the completion of the building. Thus, the contract of this case is limited within one year and the period of occurrence of defects that the contractor is responsible for the repair of defects is limited within one year, as so argued, and it is not construed as limiting the period within one year from the date of the claim for the repair of defects that occurred within one year, and according to Article 671 of the Civil Act, with respect to the warranty liability of the contractor for land, buildings and other structures, the exclusion period is stipulated as a special rule for the exclusion period under Article 670 of the Civil Act as to the warranty liability of the contractor for the land, buildings and other structures, and Article 670 of the Civil Act which provides for the exclusion period of one year for the warranty liability of the contractor of this case is not applicable to the defendant's claim for the repair of defects.

With respect to the fourth point:

According to the records, the fact finding by the court below as to the amount of additional construction costs is justifiable, and the damages of paragraph 4-g (g) of the original adjudication cited by the assertion are not constructed according to the design design among the buildings in the judgment of the court below and the amount of damages of paragraph 4-g (g) of the original adjudication as to the amount of additional construction costs is recognized as the amount equivalent to the construction cost to be incurred in the event that the additional repair work is impossible as designed and constructed as a result of the design, and it is not recognized as the damages of the amount equivalent to the defect repair cost as to the portion that can be repaired, and it is not recognized as the amount of damages of the portion

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

With respect to the First Ground:

Examining the evidence revealed by the court below in light of the records, the additional construction cost determined by the court below is not included in the terms of the original contract, but it can be recognized that it is construction cost for the portion additionally constructed at the request of the defendant during the construction work, and Eul evidence Nos. 9 (Receipt) can be known that the non-party 3, who was the plaintiff's employee, was a receipt for the construction cost at the defendant's request after the plaintiff delivered the building and received the construction cost. Thus, it cannot be evidence to change the above recognition, and the testimony of non-party 2 of the defendant's witness by the defendant's non-party 2 was legitimately rejected by the court below. Thus,

With respect to the second ground:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged 24,101,00 won as damages for the construction cost of the building of this case and for the portion that the defect repair is impossible due to the non-party 1's appraisal result. However, according to the records, 3,680,00 won for the appraisal of the above appraiser's 3,680,00 won for the same amount as mentioned in subparagraph (a) and 2,950,000 won for the appraisal as stated in the original appraisal report, or 5,830,000 won for the appraisal as stated in subparagraph (f) and 5,830,000 won for the appraisal as stated in the above appraisal report, or as the result of the appraisal of the same paragraph had an error and error in the appraisal report, the above appraiser's 200,000 won for the appraisal report were corrected as revised as 50,000 won for the above appraisal report (the correction is not based on the original appraisal result, but it is clear that the above appraiser's 200050,5000.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)