Whether the exclusion period of the contractor's warranty liability under the Civil Act is the period of release for a judicial claim (negative)

The period of warranty against defects of a contractor under the Civil Act is a limitation period, which is the exercise period of a right other than a trial and is not an release period for a judicial claim.

Articles 580(1), 664, 667, and 670 of the Civil Act

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

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 99Na4107 delivered on February 3, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Examining the relevant evidence in comparison with the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's assertion on the ground that the plaintiff did not claim the defendant for the repair of defects in the building of this case, or there is no evidence that the plaintiff implicitly renounced it, except the evidence rejected as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence. There is no ground

In addition, the period of warranty against defects of a contractor under the Civil Act is a period of exclusion, which is a period of exercise of a right other than a trial and is not a period of release from a trial (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu31866, Mar. 9, 190). Thus, according to the records, inasmuch as the plaintiff sent content-certified mail to the defendant before the expiration of the above period and notified the defects in the construction of this case and demanded compensation, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion as to this part shall be justified in conclusion. There is no error in the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's claim of this case violates the principle of trust and good faith. There is no ground

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.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)