공동주택의 하자담보책임에 관한 판례의 고찰

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s ruling on August 12, 2021 Da210195 includes VAT for repairing defects, but since VAT falls under Article 38 (1) 1 of the Value Added Tax Act, if the victim can deduct or receive a refund from his sales tax, he/she cannot claim damages. The Supreme Court’s 2013 Da47651 ruling on January 14, 2016 states that the cost of implementing the liability for defect security under Article 9 (1) of the former Act on Ownership and Management of Collective Buildings is borne by the beneficiary under the trust contract. The Supreme Court’s ruling on October 15, 2014 said that the project approval drawing or construction drawing is a basic design created when applying for project plan approval or pre-sale approval, and if a design change is made during the construction process, it will be implemented based on the ‘completion drawing’. The Supreme Court’s ruling 2011Da46036 on April 13, 2012 considered that the legal nature of the liability period for defect security prescribed in Articles 667 to 671 of the former Act on Ownership and Management of Collective Buildings is the exclusion period, and the right to collect defects naturally expires. In addition, Article 9 of the former Act on Ownership and Management of Collective Buildings also applied to the security liability and defect repair of rental apartments converted to sale. The Supreme Court’s ruling 2001da24891 on January 27, 2004 can be seen as a mandatory provision of Articles 667 to 671 of the Civil Act on the security liability of contractors for the construction and sale of collective buildings to prevent poor construction.