The defect repair period [=10 years (in columns, bearing walls), or five years (in the case of beams, floors, roof)] of a defect, which is not a serious defect in the portions of proof-proof structures of multi-family housing.

Article 46(1) and (4) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405, Feb. 3, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 59(1) [Attachment Table 6] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19935, Mar. 16, 200; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 62(3) and 106(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1 of the Housing Act; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 59(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1 of the Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 59(1) and [Attachment Table 7] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1 of the Housing Act) provides that the period of liability for repairing defects of multi-family housing units, which is more likely to be applied to the former Enforcement Decree [1].

Article 46(1), (3), and (4) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405 of Feb. 3, 2009); Article 59(1) [Attachment Table 6], [Attachment Table 7], Articles 62(3), 106(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19935 of Mar. 16, 2007); Article 30 [Attachment Table 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeong-sung, Attorneys Kim dilution et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seosung, Attorney Seo-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2012Na3234 decided September 19, 2012

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Under Article 46 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9405, Feb. 3, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply), the term "liability for security, defect repair, etc." (including a project owner who has constructed an apartment house for the purpose of parcelling-out with a building permit granted under Article 8 of the Building Act and a contractor who has performed an act under Article 42 (2) 2; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) shall apply in the provisions of Articles 67 through 671 of the Civil Act with respect to the liability for warranty arising from the parcelling-out of a building, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings to which the provisions of Articles 67 through 671 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis, the date of usage inspection of the apartment house (referring to the date of provisional use approval where the approval was obtained for the whole apartment house in a housing complex) or Article 18 of the Building Act, the project owner shall request the safety diagnosis institution of the apartment within the period prescribed by Presidential Decree."

Meanwhile, Article 59 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19935, Mar. 16, 2007; hereinafter the same) provides that "the scope of defects that a project proprietor is liable for repair under Article 46 (1) of the Act, the warranty period for each load-bearing structure and each facility construction shall be as shown in attached Tables 6 and 7." Article 62 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act provides that "the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may request a safety diagnosis of the relevant apartment if he/she recognizes that there is a serious defect in the load-bearing structure of the apartment pursuant to Article 46 (4) of the former Housing Act, and Article 106 (1) 2 provides that "the warranty for the repair of defects that have occurred during the warranty period under Article 59 (1) may be guaranteed by the defendant."

In addition, under the title of "the scope of defects subject to repair of defects and the defect liability period for each facility construction" of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (attached Table 6), the term "the scope of defects" is classified into one year, two years, and three years by type of construction, as "the defect liability period for each facility construction" as "a defect that may cause harm to the function, aesthetic view, or safety of a building or a facility due to a rupture, rupture, rupture, rupture, etc. caused by a mistake

Meanwhile, the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (attached Table 7) provides that “the scope of defects” under the title of “the scope of defects subject to defect repair by load-bearing structure and defect liability period by load-bearing structure” shall be “the case where the relevant multi-family housing is collapsed due to a defect in the load-bearing structure, or where the relevant multi-family housing is determined to collapse as a result of safety diagnosis under Article 62(3).” The term “the defect repair period by load-bearing structure” shall be 10 years for columns, load-bearing walls (excluding lighting walls that do not have power), beams, floors, and roof, five years.”

2. The above contents and structure of the housing-related Acts and subordinate statutes as well as the structure thereof, ① Article 46(1) and (3) of the former Housing Act, Article 59(1) and attached Table 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, especially for an aggravated liability in light of the risk and major nature of the infrastructure, are not to be restricted from imposing liability for repair only for serious defects such as where apartment houses are likely to collapse or collapse, ② If there is a defect that is not a serious defect that occurs in the load-proof structure, it constitutes a defect for which the business entity bears liability for repair, but rather, there is no explicit provision for the defect repair period; ③ if there is a significant defect in the structure and structure of the apartment house for which the project entity is not responsible for the installation of the apartment house for a 10-year period and its load-bearing walls (see attached Table 6 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry for a 1, 2, and 3-year period, it is to be separately prescribed that there is a significant defect in the structure and structure of the apartment.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the warranty contract with a warranty period of five years or ten years.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)