• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.195-202
• /
• 2018

The defects that are bound to arise in most construction projects cause disputes among the contracting parties regarding the defect warranty liability (DWL)guaranteed by the retention of the contractor's performance security at the end of the performance period of the contract. Most current projects involve a multiple-tier contractual relationship, causing the liability for some defects to overlap. In addition, many construction projects are made up of multiple detailed work types which an expert hired by the owner inspects the part completed by the contractor and pays an interim payment. However, after the completion of work, the contractor will still hold the defect warranty liability. In a scenario in which the work is delayed due to reasons for which the owner is responsible, the defect warranty liability period is also increased, imposing an additional burden on the contractor. In this study, basic research was carried out with the goal of reducing problems related to defect warranty liability Problems related to defect warranty liability cases and the nature of the defect warranty liability period were investigated. Possible solutions to the problems caused by the DWL that were suggested include the separation of the negligence liability period and the strict liability period, as well as the introduction of a retention money system.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• 2008.05a
• /
• pp.153-157
• /
• 2008

The construction market has gradually become complexity, variety and specialization, and then owner's requirements about quality has become various. In order to solve the problem such as stated above, advanced constructions in United Kingdom, Japan and United States have introduced warranty contract which is warranted to quality and performance for need of owner in determined term to ensure the quality of construction since 1960s. However, the interior of a country encounter another problem result from defects liability what indefiniteness of defects standard, excess responsibility period, social recognition of be identical fraudulent work and defects, and contract with ascendancy of owners. etc, so builders concerned more excess defects liability than the quality of construction. The purpose of this study is to analysis of warranty contract in order to solve the problem such as stated above.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.385-391
• /
• 2017

The warranty liability period for defects in apartment buildings by work type is not based on scientific analysis, making the appropriateness of the term a culprit behind the lawsuits. Therefore, this research aims to evaluate the appropriateness of the warranty liability term of apartment buildings by identifying the current status of defects, in particular, caused by finishing works. That is because the number of defects, caused during the finishing works, accounted for the largest portion of the total defect cases of apartment buildings reported to the Apartment Defect Dispute Mediation Committee under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport of Korea between 2010 and 2011. The result from analyzing claims for defect repairs of the finishing works showed that most cases by work type continued to be made after two years, and only about 60% were charged within the warranty period. And, defects by work type have correlation, which needs to be considered for a better construction technique. Considering a low correlation between the possibility of defects and the construction performance rankings, which are highly relevant to the apartment preference. It is believed that there needs to be a qualification process for agencies that actually performs finishing works.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• 2007.04a
• /
• pp.89-92
• /
• 2007

Since 1960s, advanced constructions have introduced warranty contract which is warranted to quality and performance for need of owner in determined term to ensure the quality of construction. However, the interior of a country encounter another problem result from Defects Liability what indefiniteness of defects standard, excess responsibility period, social recognition of be identical fraudulent work and defects, and contract with ascendancy of owners. etc, so builders concerned more excess defects liability than the quality of construction. The purpose of this study is to analysis of warranty contract in order to solve the problem such as stated above.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• 2015.05a
• /
• pp.245-246
• /
• 2015

Cases of lawsuit and conflict are increasing because of defects in apartments in use after the completion of construction. Further, with changes in the consciousness of residents and in the social environment, many residents are showing interest in defect-related lawsuits. However, the term of warranty liability defined in the current law is not practically appropriate, and the verification of the determination of the term of warranty liability is insufficient. Against this background, this research aims to evaluate the appropriateness of defect repair periods by examining the actual defect condition of the finishing work among the various defects related to apartments. Collected performance data are analyzed by statistical techniques by considering the defect occurrence rate per construction type and the construction year of the finishing work in apartment construction. The analysis results will be used as basic data for evaluating the appropriateness of the standards for the term finishing works warranty liability.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.65-75
• /
• 2022

On 11 June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the judgment of the lower court was justified for the subject case, that the plaintiff could assert the defendant's liability for default due to incomplete performance even though the warranty period for defects which stipulated in the particular condition of the contract has expired. In Korean civil law, the concurrent between the exclusion period for defect warranty and the extinctive prescription for default liability is conceded, since the exclusion period and the extinctive prescription have their respective purposes in law, therefore these two should be judged by harmonizing them based on that they are mutually related. If the subject judgment is generalized, there is no reason to exist for the provisions of defect liability in the construction contract any longer. This study examines the subject judgments through the general theory and precedent case studies on the defect liability and default liability, then derived any problems that may arise if the subject judgment is generalized. In addition, based on a realistic model, it was suggested for a practical improvement method that both the provisions of the warranty period shall be changed realistic and to stipulate the character of its nature as written provisions in the contract.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.34-42
• /
• 2018

Apartment is a typical type of housing preferred by the majority of people. However, and defect disputes occur because various defects such as cracks, subsidence, breakage, water leakage, dew condensation and dropout are confirmed with numerous structures and finishing materials. From this point of view, this paper analyzes defect frequency and costs of each warranty period by work types, and estimates defect risks by using defect dispute cases. It examined about 5,337 defect items for 32 apartment over ten years old. In this paper, there are 10 types of work types and the warranty liability period is divided into 6 categories. Based on these categories, defect frequency and costs are investigated, and finally defect risk of the warranty liability period by work types confirmed. As a result of this analysis, it was found that defect risk in RC and finishing work is very high. Especially the RC work revealed that there is a high risk of trying from the third year onwards and it was found that the defect risk up to the second year is high in the finishing work. Due to aging of RC structure, the defect risk gradually increases, and finishing work initially cause defect disputes because of the housing environment.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.40 no.4
• /
• pp.104-113
• /
• 2012

This study aimed to find out the improvement plan through analyzing the perception of the expert group engaged in landscape architectural construction and to focus on analyzing the expert groups' experience on Landscape Construction Defects (LCD), defect liability, warranty period, and implementation of the defect liability. The results are as follows: 1. Regarding the experience on the LCD, landscape construction contractors were an awareness of the LCD issue at a serious level, while public-sector clients recognize moderately the LCD issue; and on the first priority in defect implementation, landscape construction contractors considered repair cost while public-sector clients value the identifying causes of defects. 2. In disagreement on the defect liability, landscape construction contractors attributed it to client's lack of responsibility for maintenance while public-sector clients ascribed it to the absence of dealing a criteria with LCD, and regarding the appropriate defect implementation, public-sector clients preferred the following objective by dealing the criteria with LCD while landscape construction contractors advocates by sharing the responsibilities for dealing with LCD based on the identified causes of construction defects. 3. Regarding the warranty period, the public-sector clients considered the 2-year warranty period as appropriate while landscape construction contractors considered it comparatively long, and concerning the commencement of defect warranty period, the public-sector clients viewed it as it should commence to cover the overall completion of the construction while landscape construction contractors perceived it to start on the completion of each work. 4. As for the improvement of the defect implementation system, public-sector clients considered it necessary to establish the objective dealing the criteria with LCD while landscape construction contractors viewed the legislation of maintenance duty. Also, with regard to the important value in establishing and dealing the criteria with LCD, public-sector clients pointed out the objective of the criteria for determining the defects per work type while landscape construction contractors suggested client (user)'s maintenance duty. Because of research, because the system in dealing with LCD is an absence of LCD management agency and dealing the criteria with LCD, it is needed to establish an LCD management agency and make the system in dealing with LCD.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2014

In contracts for the international sale of goods, a seller must deliver appropriate goods and hand over relevant documents according to a contract, which will transfer the ownership of the goods to a buyer. In this case, if there are defects in the contracted goods, the warranty liability will occur. However, in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), a term-the conformity of the goods to the contract-is used universally instead of the warranty. According to the CISG, a seller must deliver goods in conformance with the relevant contract in terms of quantity, quality, and specifications, and they must be contained in vessels or in packages according to the specifications in the contract. In addition, a certain set of requirements for conformity will be applied implicitly except when there is a separate agreement between parties. Further, the base period of conformity concerning the defects of goods is the point when the risk is transferred to the buyer. A seller shall be obliged to deliver goods that do not belong to a third party or subject to a claim then, and such obligations shall affect the right or claim of a third party to some extent based on intellectual property rights clauses. If the goods delivered by the seller lack conformity, or incur right infringement or claim of a third party, then it shall be regarded as a default item per the obligation of the seller. Thus, the buyer can exercise diverse means of relief as specified in Chapter 2, Section 3 (Article 45-Article 52) of the CISG. However, such means of relief have been utilized in various ways for individual cases as shown in judicial precedents made until now. Contracting parties shall thus keep in mind that it is best for them to make every contract airtight and they should implement each contract thoroughly and faithfully to cope with any possible occurrence of a commercial dispute.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal implication about conformity of goods in the international commercial transactions. There are so many legal relationship after the formation of contract. The most of important thing among the obligations of seller is to provide conformal goods which are of quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. If seller violate above duties, seller take the warranty liability. However, CISG describe the conformity of the goods instead of the warranty as follows. First, CISG Art.35(1) states standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract and Art.35(2) describes standards relating to the goods' quality, function and packaging that, while not mandatory, are presumed to be a part of sales contracts. Article 35(2) is comprised of four subparts. Two of the subparts (article 35(2) (a) and article 35(2)(d)) apply to all contracts unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Second, CISG Art.36 and 38 deals with the time at which a lack of conformity in the goods must have arisen in order for the seller to be liable for it. If seller lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time, seller is liable for a lack of conformity existing when risk passed to the buyer. Third, CISG Art.49 describe that a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The most of important things about CISG articles and precedents is that buyer is aware of the lack of conformity and notice it to seller. Failure to satisfy the notice requirements of article 39 eliminates a buyer's defence, based on a lack of conformity in delivered goods, to a seller's claim for payment of the price. Consequently, parties of contract had better agree to the notifying times about lack of conformity. Also, If seller fined the non-conformity, seller has to notify this circumstance to the buyer within short period or agreed time.