| Title |
A Study on the End of Defects Liability Exit Procedure in Apartment Buildings through Case Studies |
| Authors |
Kim, Jin-kuk ; Bang, Hong-Soon ; Choi, Byung-Ju ; kim, Ok-Kyue |
| DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5659/JAIK_PD.2018.34.10.25 |
| Keywords |
An apartment house ; Defect liability ; Flow close |
| Abstract |
The ending of the warranty under the current Multi-Housing Management Act has a lot of problem as it is very disadvantageous to the business entity and it makes hard for the contractor to finish the repair work. It is almost none for the business entity to get the written confirmation of the expiration of warranty liability from the client even though it sincerely completed their warranty obligation. It is because the client asks for the works other than fair repair arising from the defect in the work, such as the upgrade work for the enhancement of the value of their assets and the repair work which the client should take care before it issues the written confirmation of the expiration of warranty liability to the contractor. "So, though there is the law specifying this matter, the parties are relying on the unnecessary civil agreement. This leads to the big social and economic losses. If there is no agreement made between the client and the contractor, that leads to the legal dispute. This research on cases of 10 apartments shows that the types of works which the apartment residents ask for depend on the characteristics and conditions of the apartments and that they ask for various kinds of compensational works. In addition, it was found that there were many cases in which even the civil agreement is not recognized as the ending of the warranty obligation even if the proper procedure is taken for the ending of warranty by the contractor or business entity. If the collateral is to be offered to the client, the contractor would get more hard because there is the additional cost other than the warranty obligation, thus damaging the legal objective of the laws trying to minimize the damage made to the resident of the apartments. It means that the increase in the unnecessary warranty cost would lead to the increase in the selling price of apartment and the ending of the dispute through the civil procedure would make the Multi-Housing Act ineffective. |