(a) The purpose of legislation of the Building Act which designates an architect as a project supervisor and allows him/her to sign a completion report;

(b) Timing to terminate construction supervision services of an architect;

A. The purport of the Building Act that specifies an architect as a project supervisor and requires the signature of an architect in a construction completion report is to prevent unlawful buildings from being constructed under the responsibility and guarantee of an architect who is a project supervisor.

B. A certified architect’s construction supervision service is completed and reported to the owner and signed on the completion report. However, if the building reported as completion fails to pass the completion inspection, the building owner shall have the construction executor re-report the completion of the construction work. This re-report also requires the signature of the certified architect who is the construction supervisor. In this case, the time when the construction supervisor completed the completion inspection cannot be deemed as the time when the construction supervisor’s supervision is no longer required by the completion inspection.

Articles 6 and 7 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991)

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu9000 delivered on October 16, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 6 (2) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 191) shall, when the owner intends to carry out construction works exceeding the scale prescribed by the Presidential Decree in terms of a construction or substantial repair of a building subject to a permit under this Act, designate an architect under the Certified Architects Act as the construction supervisor. Paragraph (3) of this Article shall, when the construction supervisor finds that an assistant architect under Article 2 (2) of the Certified Architects Act resides in the construction site and assists in the construction work supervision during the construction period, and shall, when he/she fails to comply with this Act or any order or disposition issued under this Act, advise the construction supervisor and the head of the Si/Gun to correct it, if he/she fails to comply therewith. Paragraph (7) of this Article, the construction supervisor shall, upon receiving a report on the completion of the construction supervision from the date on which he/she reports on the completion of the construction supervision under paragraph (3) above, once he/she completes the construction supervision, provide that the construction supervisor shall not refuse or modify the construction supervision or give any disadvantage to the construction supervisor without delay.

In light of the fact that the period of completion inspection after the completion of construction under the Building Act is less than 14 days and that the occupancy which has not undergone the completion inspection is prohibited under Article 7 (4) of the Building Act, it shall not be deemed that the construction supervisor has an unreasonable and excessive burden as a result of continuing the supervision duty after signing the completion report.

Nevertheless, the court below decided that the construction supervision work of the architect shall be terminated by signing the completion report and delivering it to the owner. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the timing of termination of the construction supervision work.

However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the structure and alteration of use of the building of this case were conducted without permission for two years after the plaintiff completed the supervision, without filing a report on completion of construction, and without permission by the owner of the building. In light of this point, the plaintiff who is an architect neglected supervision over the building of this case for four months or more, and thus, the disposition of this case in this case is illegal disposition exceeding the discretionary power. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the disposition of this case is unlawful is justified. The argument is without merit.

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