Hello, this is attorney Bae Ki-hyung of Cheongchul Law Firm.

When large-scale defects appear in an apartment complex and the residents’ representative council claims damages in lieu of defect repairs from the contractor, one of the most fiercely contested issues is precisely this: which set of design drawings governs the finding of a defect?

In apartment construction, the ‘project approval drawings (commencement drawings)’ often differ from the ‘use approval drawings (completion drawings)’ finally submitted to the competent authority. Residents argue that materials were omitted or downgraded compared with the commencement drawings that applied when they bought the units, so a defect exists; the contractor counters that the work followed the completion drawings finalised through lawful design changes during construction, so there is no defect. Repair costs worth tens of billions of won can turn on the answer.

Today we explain the Supreme Court’s clear governing principle on which drawings determine apartment defects, and the exceptional requirements under which that principle gives way.

Which drawings govern – the completion-drawing rule and the Supreme Court’s exceptions

[Question] If an apartment was built differently from the original commencement drawings but in accordance with the final completion drawings, can residents treat that as a defect and claim repair costs?

[Answer] The Supreme Court holds that, absent special circumstances, defects are judged against the finally confirmed ‘completion drawings (use approval drawings)’.

Accordingly, if the work matches the completion drawings, it is in principle difficult to establish a defect.

The Supreme Court has held that “even if an apartment was built differently from the project approval or commencement drawings, it cannot be regarded as defective, absent special circumstances, where it was built in accordance with the completion drawings” (Supreme Court, 15 October 2014, 2012Da18762).

The rationale is practical: large apartment projects run for years, so design changes large and small are inevitable as site conditions and technology evolve during construction.

The principle is not absolute, however. The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line: where the following exceptional circumstances are proved, the commencement drawings or another standard may apply.

1. Where specific specifications were incorporated into the sale contract

If the project proprietor expressly promised or explained to purchasers, through sales brochures, catalogues or the model house, that particular premium materials or construction methods recorded in the commencement drawings would be used, those terms are treated as impliedly incorporated into the ‘sale contract’. Where the contractor unilaterally downgrades such contractually fixed items and then records the change in the completion drawings, the quality subjectively expected by the purchaser is not met and a clear defect arises.

2. Unauthorised downgrading without a lawful design change procedure

Sometimes a proprietor or contractor pushes through downgraded or omitted work to cut costs, without obtaining the project plan change approval required from the competent authority under housing legislation. The Seoul High Court held that where a design change was made unlawfully in this way, it cannot serve as the benchmark for judging a change-of-work defect even if it was later reflected in the completion drawings (Seoul High Court, 4 February 2016, 2014Na46015, affirmed by Supreme Court, 7 July 2016, 2016Da16214).

3. Where the completion drawings omit an express standard

The completion-drawing rule applies where the two sets of drawings differ or conflict in what they record. If the completion drawings say nothing concrete about, for instance, tile bonding strength, and the requirement appears only in the specifications or another standard, the court will judge the defect against those specifications and the standards required by ordinary trade practice (Supreme Court, 12 January 2023, 2019Da278228).

Prove contractual incorporation and the legality of the design change in detail

For the residents’ representative council (plaintiff), breaking through the contractor’s defence that the work matched the completion drawings requires actively proving, through meticulous document collection, either that the specification was advertised and agreed in terms concrete enough to be incorporated into the sale contract, or that the contractor’s design change was an arbitrary manoeuvre that skipped the required approval procedure.

For the contractor or developer (defendant), avoiding an unjust award means clearly establishing the legality of the design change and the propriety of the completion drawings through progress records and supervision reports, so that the appraisal is not inflated by loosely applying the commencement drawings.

Disputes over which drawings govern can shift an appraised amount by tens of billions of won, and they sit where extensive analysis of design documents meets the interpretation of the Housing Act and the Building Act, so concrete legal review is needed from the outset.

Drawing on a deep understanding of Supreme Court precedent and of the complex appraisal practice in large-scale multi-unit housing defect disputes, Cheongchul Law Firm provides tailored defence and claim strategies to prevent unjust loss and protect legitimate rights. If you are facing difficulties over apartment defect repair settlements or litigation, please consult the specialists at Cheongchul Law Firm.

-------

Attorney Bae Ki-hyung served at the Defense Installations Agency and in the construction and real estate teams of major law firms, advising on the entire course of government-funded and large-scale construction works, defence facility projects and SOC projects, as well as public contracts, and resolving the related litigation. If you need assistance with government works, private construction, public procurement contracts, or national, local and public property, please contact him at any time.

* * *

Cheongchul Law Firm is composed solely of attorneys from Korea’s five largest law firms, the prosecution service and corporate legal teams, and responds with a team of specialists in the fields relevant to each case rather than a single lawyer. Beyond resolving isolated issues, Cheongchul provides comprehensive solutions across the client’s business, focusing on legal consulting that ultimately achieves what the client wants. If you need help reaching your goal, please do not hesitate to contact us.