Company A subcontracted building extension construction work to Company B and Company B completed the extension construction work. However, about 4 years after the completion of the construction work, Company A discovered defects such as cracks in the wall and ground subsidence. Subsequently, Company A requested Company B to repair the defects and provide reinforcement work. But Company B argued that the above defects resulted from ground construction work or site building construction work, and thus the defect liability period of two years (limitation period) should be applied.

DR & AJU refuted Company B’s argument by arguing that the above defect is a material structural defect lacking in its fundamental structural safety as an architectural structure, which means it falls under a defect that is specifically distinguished from those that provide for one to three years of defect liability period. In particular, DR & AJU argued that the defects with such one to three years of liability period are classified by the nature of construction work, under Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, whereas the structure stability defects of load-bearing walls are classified by the area of such defect, as the legislative intent was to impose a greater liability (five or ten years of liability period) for such serious and material defects. DR & AJU argued that the defect at issue falls under the latter, the limitation period of ten years or five years shall apply.

DR & AJU was able to bring a favorable judgment from the court, which accepted most of the claims made by Company A, by focusing on the relevant facts and laws particular to the construction works.