[1] In a case where a defect in a residential building due to a defective construction project is the degree of reconstruction, the scope of ordinary damages suffered by buyers

[2] The case rejecting the claim of consolation money on the ground that the mental damage of the buyer can be compensated for property damage in case where the defect of residential building due to defective construction works is the degree of reconstruction

[1] In a case where the buyer fails to reconstruct due to the defect of the buyer, if the buyer cannot use each house for residential purpose, and the buyer is unable to repair it, the amount of ordinary damages suffered by the buyer shall be deemed the amount of the present price equivalent to the exchange value of each house.

[2] The case rejecting the claim of consolation money on the ground that the mental damage of the buyer can be compensated for property damage in case where the defect of residential building due to defective construction works is the degree of reconstruction.

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

[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da19115 delivered on November 9, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 74), Supreme Court Decision 93Da5979 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 472), Supreme Court Decision 95Da12798 delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2106)

[Defendant-ho-ho] Three others (Attorney Chang Chang-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant (Attorney Im Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs and the Appointors the amount of each of the above amounts listed in the attached list and each of the above amounts from March 21, 1995 to the Appointors, from May 11, 1995 to the Appointors Kim Jong-sung, from May 11, 1995 to the Appointors, from November 17, 1993 to the end of January 18, 1996 to the end of January 18, 1996, the amount of 5 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Each of the plaintiffs and designated parties is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court below and the defendant as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, and the judgment of the court below that each of the plaintiffs and the appointed parties shall pay 3,000,000 won as consolation money and 5% per annum from the service day of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the sentence of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

The defendant newly constructed (number omitted) housing units on the ground of the (number omitted), including Jeju City (hereinafter omitted) in 190 and 191, and sold each of the (number omitted) housing units listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs and the designated parties in full, and occupied each of the above housing units without dispute between the plaintiffs and the designated parties. The following facts are as follows: Gap evidence No. 1, verification results of commissioned judge and appraiser's completion, red tag, Han Jae-jin's verification result, and witness's testimony. The defendant did not construct the basic board while constructing the (number omitted) housing units, and constructed the (number omitted) apartment units on the ground of this case (number omitted), and the (number omitted) apartment units (number omitted) housing units at 1991, and constructed new housing units on the ground of this case's (number omitted), so it is not possible for the plaintiffs to establish new housing units on the ground of this case's 9th anniversary of this case's relocation and reinforcement of the ground, and it is not possible for the plaintiffs to do so.

According to the above facts, the defendant, in the new construction of the house of this case (name omitted), caused the incomplete performance of the obligation due to its defective construction and the failure to perform the duty of repair works under the above agreement, thereby infringing the plaintiffs and the designated parties to use the building in the above sales contract, and thereby, the purpose of each sales contract cannot be achieved. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to compensate for all property damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the designated parties. Thus, if the house of this case (name omitted) is not reconstructed, the plaintiffs and the designated parties are unable to use the house of this case for residential purpose and make it impossible to repair the house of this case, and therefore, the amount of ordinary damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the designated parties shall be the current market price equivalent to the exchange value of each house of this case.

Meanwhile, in addition to the above damages, the plaintiffs and the designated parties also seek payment of 3,000,000 won for each of the plaintiffs and the designated parties as consolation money to compensate for mental damage on the premise that the defendant performed a defective construction work to the extent that they could not use each of the houses of this case for residential purpose. However, there is no proof as to the fact that the plaintiffs and the designated parties suffered mental damage, and even if they are recognized as having suffered mental damage, they can be compensated for the property damage equivalent to the current market price of each of the houses of this case as seen above, the part claiming consolation money of the plaintiffs and the designated parties shall not be accepted.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs and the designated parties each amount of money listed in the separate sheet corresponding to the current market price of each house of this case, and to the following day after the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant as requested by the plaintiffs, on March 21, 1995 (as to the appointed party Park Jong-young), May 11 of the same year (as to the appointed party Kim Bag, Park Jong-young, Kim Doh), November 17, 1993 (as to the plaintiff and the remaining designated parties), five percent per annum under the Civil Act from January 18, 1996, and twenty five percent per annum from the next day until the full payment date as stipulated in the Special Act on the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc., the defendant's claim of this case of this case is justified only within the scope of the damages for the above recognition, and the remaining damages for delay shall be dismissed by applying the proviso of Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 92 of the Civil Execution Act.

Judges Kim Tae-dae (Presiding Judge)