Plaintiff 1 and 698 (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jin-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Han-gu, Attorneys Doho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hanyang, Inc.

July 6, 2011

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Gahap10613, 2009Gahap14087 decided November 10, 2010

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 2 the amount of money at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment with regard to each corresponding source of money and each of the above amounts stated in the statement of calculation of damages by the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings and Articles 667 through 671 of the Civil Act applied mutatis mutandis by the defendant as a person who constructed and sold the apartment of this case, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs, who are the sectional owners of the apartment of this case, for damages and damages for delay in lieu of the repair of defects existing in the apartment of this case.

3. Scope of damages.

The reasoning for the court's explanation in this part concerning this case is as follows: (a) adding the following [in addition] to the 6th sentence of the judgment of the first instance court, and (b) before the 9th sentence, "the defendant accumulated the special repair reserve necessary for the replacement, repair, etc. of main facilities as a rental business operator, and paid 486,00,000 won to the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case while converting the sale of the apartment of this case into sale; (c) the defendant asserts that the defendant does not bear the liability for warranty for defects of the apartment of this case; (d) the defendant asserts that the successful bid rate of 87.75% should be applied from the government cost calculation; (e) the plaintiff asserts that only the cost of the 5th sentence of the first instance judgment is included in the cost of defect repair; (f) the plaintiff's assertion that the difference less than 0.3mm is not permissible; and (b) the defendant's assertion that the portion below the limitation of liability is the same as the corresponding part in the corresponding part, and therefore stated.

[Supplementary Parts]

③ Although occupants may demand the repair of defects during the lease period before the conversion for sale in lots, the right to request the repair of defects recognized as the tenant's position and the right to request the repair of defects recognized as the tenant's position and as the owner of the subsequent purchase in lots cannot be deemed identical in its legal nature and function, and it cannot be readily concluded that the tenant and the purchaser are identical with each other. ④ There is no reason to change the cases where the buyer who resided in a rental house for five years and was converted for sale in lots at the beginning and the buyer who was converted for sale in lots pays the warranty liability to the seller after five years from the beginning.

[4] The assertion that 87.75% of the successful bid price rate should be applied in the calculation of the government cost

A) The assertion

According to the calculation of the government cost, since the general bid price ratio for the construction project is 87.75%, the cost of repairing defects shall be reduced by the above bid price ratio.

B) Determination

The bid price ratio of the Defendant’s assertion is derived from a competitive bid for a government contract for construction works, which is premised on the fact that there was a competition in a contract for construction works. As such in the instant case, there is no ground to apply it as it is in calculating the range of damages in lieu of defect repair, and in light of the fact that the bid price rate is the numerical value generated by the bid company’s actual competition rate as the variable, it is difficult to conclude that the determination of

[E] The argument that only partial design cost is included in the cost of defect repair]

A) The assertion

In the event that the part of the apartment of this case is to be built after repair on the rupture unit of the apartment of this case, the area is limited to 3.57% of the total Do road, and the apartment of this case needs to be built on a regular basis after 7 years from the date on which the apartment of this case was occupied. Therefore, recognizing the whole rupture after the rupture repair in this case is unreasonable because

B) Determination

According to the appraiser's appraisal result, in the case of the apartment of this case where the part of the apartment of this case after repairing rupture, etc., the area of the 4,449.92 square meters falls under 10.91 percent of the total 40,766.98 square meters and the area of the Do road was smaller than the area of the entire Do road. However, in the case where the part of the rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture ruptures occurred on the outer wall of the apartment of this case, if the part of the rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rupture rout

[f] The assertion that equal heat below 0.3mm is not a defect that is permissible

A) The assertion

The stop fever of less than 0.3mm in width is extremely insignificant and difficult to confirm it with the land, and it is inevitable to occur due to the material characteristics of concrete, so it does not constitute defect repair.

B) Determination

Even if it is inevitable to generate equal heat due to the characteristics of concrete, it is reasonable to uniformly exclude heat below a certain standard from the object of defect repair without considering the environmental conditions where equal heat is generated. Even if the temperature change by season is very high due to the characteristics of Korea, it may hinder the function and safety of structure such as reducing the inner strength of structure due to the corrosion of rainwater and the spread of military heat, etc. In addition, if concrete external walls with equal heat is exposed, it is not good in light of the appearance, so it is necessary to repair it (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da3939, Jan. 30, 200). Also, since there is a equal heat the width of which is less than 0.3mm, it is possible to distinguish it from the land, and it is possible to spread equal heat due to the infiltration of rainwater, etc., and thus, it is not necessary to repair the defendant's assertion that the construction of concrete is more than 0.3mm, as it does not have the reason for the above.

[b] Limitation on Liability]

On the other hand, the apartment of this case, which was approved for use on or around January 29, 2001, can be naturally occurring after the lapse of 8 years from the date of the first instance trial until October 2009 when the appraisal of the apartment of this case was implemented. The defendant converted the apartment of this case into a sale on or around April 2006 after the lapse of 5 years from the date of the inspection of use, and the sale price was determined by considering depreciation up to the time of the apartment of this case. The owners of the apartment of this case appear to have purchased the apartment of this case at the same price. It is difficult to strictly distinguish the parts caused by the construction error and the parts caused by natural aging phenomenon from among the defects that occurred in the apartment of this case, and the possibility that the defects of the apartment of this case could have been expanded due to the mistake in the use and management of the plaintiffs, who are the sectional owners of the apartment of this case, should be considered in light of all the circumstances revealed in the argument of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from September 30, 2010 to the day following the delivery date of the application for modification of the claim of this case to each of the above amounts, among the damages for each of the plaintiffs calculated as stated in the above 3.3. The defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 30, 2010 to the day of full payment, among the damages for each of the plaintiffs calculated as stated in the above 3.3., and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Han-ju (Presiding Judge)