Built Exactly as the Drawings Said, and a Defect Appeared — How Far Does a Contractor’s Liability Reach in South Korea
How Far Does a Contractor’s Liability Reach in South Korea
Contents
- 1. I built exactly what the drawings showed, and a defect appeared. Am I liable?
- 2. What does “the same as following the owner’s instruction” mean?
- 3. Does the same reasoning apply to negligence in tort?
- 4. What if a material was acceptable when built but not by today’s standards?
- 5. What if the contractor could see the drawings were wrong?
- 6. What if the contractor told the construction supervisor?
- 7. Does escaping warranty liability mean escaping everything?
- 8. Is a contractor liable to unit owners it never contracted with?
- 9. What actually decides these cases?
- 10. What this means for foreign developers and contractors in South Korea
- 11. Frequently asked questions
1. I built exactly what the drawings showed, and a defect appeared. Am I liable?
Years after completion, a defect surfaces. The contractor feels wronged: it chose neither the material nor the method. It built precisely what the design documents and specifications handed over by the owner required. Why should it pay for a flaw the drawings created?
That objection has a statutory basis in South Korea. The Korean Civil Act sets out the contractor’s warranty liability (Article 667) and, immediately after, carves out the territory that liability does not reach.
The provisions of the preceding two Articles shall not apply where the defect of the object is attributable to the nature of materials supplied by, or to the instruction of, the person who ordered the work. This shall not apply, however, where the contractor knew that the materials or instruction were unsuitable and failed to inform the person who ordered the work.
— Korean Civil Act, Article 669
The structure has two layers. The main clause grants an exemption; the proviso identifies when that exemption disappears. Almost every dispute in practice turns on which layer applies.
A provision of the same design sits in the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and in construction practice it is invoked even more often.
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a contractor shall bear no warranty liability for a defect arising from any of the following. This shall not apply, however, where the contractor knew that the materials supplied or the instruction given by the project owner were unsuitable and failed to notify the project owner of that fact.
1. Where the quality or specifications of materials supplied by the project owner fall below standards, or where the defect arises from the nature of those materials
2. Where the work was performed in accordance with the project owner’s instruction
3. Where the project owner used the structure beyond the durable years prescribed by the relevant statutes or beyond the structural strength provided in the design
— Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 28(2)
The architecture matches Article 669: an exemption in the main clause, withdrawn by a proviso where the contractor knew and stayed silent. Both provisions converge on the same two questions. Was it the project owner’s instruction, and did the contractor know it was unsuitable and say nothing?
Read alone, however, the text leaves a gap. It does not say how far “instruction” reaches — whether it covers only what the owner says during construction, or also the design drawings handed over when the contract was signed. The Supreme Court of Korea filled that gap three decades ago.
2. What does “the same as following the owner’s instruction” mean?
It means that building to the drawings is itself equivalent to following an instruction. The drawings were prepared and supplied by the owner, so a contractor who merely executes them has substituted none of its own judgment.
Where the contractor under a construction contract has built in accordance with the entries in the design drawings, this is the same as following the instruction of the person who ordered the work. Unless the contractor knew that the design drawings were unsuitable and failed to inform the person who ordered the work, the contractor cannot be held to warranty liability even if a defect has arisen in the object as a result.
— Supreme Court of Korea, May 14, 1996, 95Da24975
What makes this judgment unusually useful is that it holds opposite outcomes for one building inside a single decision. Structurally, the contractor sued as plaintiff for unpaid construction proceeds and the owner defended by asserting the cost of repairing defects. Two contracting parties faced each other, and the court reached a different answer for each defect item.
The aluminum window frames were specified in the drawings by dimension and product. The contractor installed exactly that. The Supreme Court treated this as following the owner’s instruction and imposed no warranty liability.
The glazing came out the opposite way. The drawings called for 24 mm double glazing; the contractor substituted a 22 mm ordinary product on its own initiative, and the glass it used was defective, allowing condensation and water to collect between the panes so that the insulation failed. Together with other defects the lower court found repair costs of KRW 26,122,161, and the Supreme Court upheld that finding.
The elevator went further still. The specifications required a six-person elevator manufactured by a named company; the contractor installed a cheaper unit of identical specification from a different manufacturer, and that manufacturer later became insolvent. The lower court treated the defect as unimportant because the elevator had run for nearly two years without serious failure and another firm held spare parts. The Supreme Court reversed: there was no assurance that parts would remain available through the elevator’s durable life, and for an elevator, on which passenger safety directly depends, such a defect cannot be dismissed as unimportant.
| Work item | Relation to drawings and specifications | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Aluminum window frames | Built as the drawings specified | No warranty liability |
| Double glazing | Specification lowered unilaterally | Defect found |
| Elevator | Designated manufacturer changed unilaterally | Cannot be treated as an unimportant defect (reversed) |
The rule is therefore not a broad shield for contractors. Protection ends the moment the work departs from the drawings, so it protects only the party that can prove it followed them.
3. Does the same reasoning apply to negligence in tort?
A recent lower court judgment has held that it does, carrying a rule developed for warranty liability across into the finding of negligence under Article 750 of the Korean Civil Act.
The facts are these. An insurer that had written fire and premises liability cover for an apartment complex’s council of occupants sued the company that had built the complex. Early one morning in April 2024, a sprinkler pipe inside a ceiling leaked and discharged water, flooding two units and their contents; an occupant of the unit below slipped on the water and was injured.
The insurer paid KRW 52,382,149 in total to the affected units and then, relying on subrogation under Article 682 of the Korean Commercial Act, claimed KRW 41,905,719 — eighty percent of that sum — from the contractor. It pleaded tort under Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 750 of the Korean Civil Act, together with non-performance.
The court dismissed the claim in full, beginning from the Supreme Court rule set out above.
Where the contractor under a construction contract has built in accordance with the entries in the design drawings, this is the same as following the instruction of the person who ordered the work, and unless the contractor knew that the design drawings were unsuitable and failed to inform that person, the contractor cannot be held to warranty liability even if a defect has arisen (Supreme Court of Korea, May 14, 1996, 95Da24975). This principle may likewise apply to whether negligence is found on the part of an obligor in tort.
— Seoul Central District Court, February 25, 2026, 2025Gadan79742
The practical significance is considerable. 95Da24975 arose between two parties to a construction contract. Apartment defect disputes have a different shape: there is no contract between the contractor and the residents, and the party suing is usually a resident or the resident’s insurer. In that setting the pleading of choice is tort, because it presupposes no contractual relationship. What this judgment says is that even there, the fact that the work followed the drawings becomes material to the finding of negligence.
The standing of the judgment should be stated plainly. It is a first instance decision, and publicly available sources do not confirm whether it became final. The framework of this article rests on the Supreme Court authorities discussed throughout; this judgment is best read as a recent application of them.
4. What if a material was acceptable when built but not by today’s standards?
Whether something is a defect is judged by the standard in force at the time of construction, not by today’s. Knowledge acquired after an accident, or a standard tightened years later, is not applied retroactively.
The Supreme Court of Korea has set out what a construction defect is and what is examined in deciding the question.
A defect in a structure generally means that the completed structure has a structural or functional deficiency differing from what the construction contract provided, or fails to possess the quality it should ordinarily have under transactional notions. Whether a defect exists must be determined by considering, in the aggregate, the contents of the contract between the parties, whether the structure was built in accordance with the design drawings, whether it conforms to the standards prescribed by construction-related statutes, and other circumstances.
— Supreme Court of Korea, June 26, 2008, 2005Da56193, 2005Da56209 (consolidated)
In the same judgment, addressing inter-floor noise after the governing standard had been tightened, the Court held that the amended standard could not simply be applied to apartments approved before it took effect, and identified what must be weighed instead.
Together with the amended provision, the determination must consider in the aggregate the construction practice of apartment buildings at the time this apartment was built, the degree of inter-floor noise, the level of technology at that time, the circumstances in which the amended standard was set, and other factors.
— Supreme Court of Korea, June 26, 2008, 2005Da56193, 2005Da56209 (consolidated)
The sprinkler case sits in the same line. The contractor received the fire protection design documents and specifications from the project owner, used chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe for the sprinkler system in accordance with them, and obtained a completion inspection certificate under the Fire-Fighting System Installation Business Act in July 2017. On those facts the court held:
It is difficult to find that, as of 2017, refraining from using chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) pipe as sprinkler pipe material was a duty of care required under the construction statutes and construction practice of that time, and it is likewise difficult to find that the contractor knew or could have known of any such circumstance.
— Seoul Central District Court, February 25, 2026, 2025Gadan79742
One caution: a completion or use inspection certificate is not an absolute defense. In that judgment the certificate served as one of several indications that the work met the standards then applicable, not as the sole ground of decision.
5. What if the contractor could see the drawings were wrong?
Then it had to speak. That is what the proviso to Article 669 requires. The Supreme Court has gone a step further and held that a contractor, being a professional, may not simply accept the drawings as given.
Where a contractor performing construction work in accordance with the instruction of the person who ordered the work knew that the instruction was unsuitable and failed to inform that person, the contractor cannot escape warranty liability even if the defect in the completed building is attributable to that instruction.
— Supreme Court of Korea, August 18, 2016, 2014Da31691, 31707
The facts are instructive. In a factory site development project the construction contract recorded that “reinforced earth work has been estimated as blasted-rock work,” and the contractor built rubble stone retaining walls on the slopes accordingly. Rubble stone walls are ordinarily used at heights of two meters or less and cannot bear earth pressure or load; above three meters, concrete or reinforced earth retaining walls are required. The sections at issue were built to seven meters and 5.8 meters.
The Supreme Court accepted that building to the contract terms “may be regarded as the same as following the owner’s instruction,” yet reached the opposite result.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff, as the contractor and a professional in civil engineering and construction work, had a fundamental duty to assess the safety, solidity and suitability of the retaining walls for the slope work irrespective of what the joint ordering companies requested; and even if those companies had asked the plaintiff to build rubble stone retaining walls in these sections, the plaintiff should not simply have accepted that and entered into the contract, but should have examined its soundness and, if it judged the rubble stone method unsuitable for the slope work in these sections, should have informed the defendants and had it corrected.
— Supreme Court of Korea, August 18, 2016, 2014Da31691, 31707
“Knew” is therefore read broadly. What matters is not an admission of actual knowledge but what a professional in the field would necessarily have known — all the more so where the mismatch is technically obvious, as it is when a method rated for two meters is used at seven.
The same judgment balanced the exposure. Because the contract price had been set on the assumption of rubble stone work, the contractor had no contractual obligation to rebuild at a cost exceeding that price even though it owed a duty to speak. The Court added that if the owner was also at fault in arriving at the wrong method, that fault must be weighed in fixing the scope of damages.
6. What if the contractor told the construction supervisor?
That counts as discharging the duty to inform. A construction supervisor acts for the building owner in confirming and directing the work, so notice to the supervisor is treated as notice to the owner.
A contractor performing construction work in accordance with the instruction of the person who ordered the work cannot escape warranty liability where it knew the instruction was unsuitable and failed to inform that person. However, a construction supervisor, appointed and engaged by the building owner and acting for that owner, handles the task of confirming, with the discretion of professional knowledge, whether the work is being performed in accordance with the design documents, and of directing the builder. Accordingly, where the contractor reported a circumstance arising during construction to the supervisor and continued the work in accordance with the original design documents on the supervisor’s instruction, it cannot be said that the contractor knew the design documents were unsuitable and failed to inform, even if a defect attributable to a flaw in those documents has arisen in the completed building.
— Supreme Court of Korea, October 13, 1995, 94Da31747, 31754
The facts were simple. Groundwater welled up during construction; the contractor reported it to the supervisor, who said it was not serious enough to warrant a design change; the contractor drained the water and carried on. The Supreme Court held that the contractor could not be said to have known of any flaw in the drawings, so no duty to inform ever arose.
The practical lesson is clear. When an irregularity is noticed on site, what decides the case years later is whether the observation and the supervisor’s response exist in writing. Conversations held on site are difficult to reconstruct once a dispute begins.
7. Does escaping warranty liability mean escaping everything?
No. This is the point most often misunderstood. Article 669 governs warranty liability; liability for non-performance stands separately, on its own footing.
That repair cost is compensation in lieu of repair, forming part of the contractor’s warranty liability under Article 667(2) of the Korean Civil Act, whereas compensation for the spoiled fish sauce goes beyond that warranty liability and compensates loss caused to the person and property of the party ordering the work by the contractor’s failure to perform its obligations under the contract. The two are recognized concurrently on separate grounds.
— Supreme Court of Korea, August 20, 2004, 2001Da70337
In 2020 the Supreme Court addressed the reach of Article 669 head-on.
Where a defect exists in the object completed under a construction contract, the contractor’s warranty liability and its liability for non-performance are recognized concurrently on separate grounds. (…) This provision, however, applies to the contractor’s warranty liability and not to liability for non-performance under Article 390 of the Korean Civil Act.
— Supreme Court of Korea, January 30, 2020, 2019Da268252
In short: building to the drawings is a statutory exemption within the field of warranty liability, but in the field of non-performance no such statutory exemption exists at all. To escape there, a contractor must separately establish that it bears no attributable fault.
One qualification runs the other way. Warranty liability is a no-fault liability specially recognized by statute, so the rules on comparative negligence are not directly applied. Even so, the 2004 judgment held that because warranty liability rests on the principle of fairness, fault on the part of the ordering party that contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the defect may be taken into account. The conduct of the party that supplied the drawings can therefore still matter when the amount is fixed.
8. Is a contractor liable to unit owners it never contracted with?
Not on a contractual footing: without a contract there is no obligation to perform. But the absence of a contract does not leave the contractor free of liability. Two separate routes remain open outside the contract.
In the sprinkler case the insurer pleaded tort and non-performance together. The court rejected the latter in these terms.
The defendant merely undertook the work under a contract awarded by the project owner and did not enter into a construction contract directly with the affected units; accordingly, it bears no liability for non-performance toward the affected units, which were not its counterparties.
— Seoul Central District Court, February 25, 2026, 2025Gadan79742
Where a public agency or a developer commissions the work and the contractor builds what is then sold to buyers, there is ordinarily no contract between the contractor and the residents, and a contractual claim stops there. Two routes remain.
First, the warranty liability created directly by the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings. A common misconception should be corrected here: warranty liability does not always arise only between contracting parties. For a condominium building, South Korean statute creates liability irrespective of contract.
A person who has built and sold a building referred to in Article 1 or 1-2 (hereinafter “seller”) and a person who has built the building under a contract with the seller and who is prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereinafter “contractor“) shall bear warranty liability toward the sectional owners. In such cases, Articles 667 and 668 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to that warranty liability.
— Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, Article 9(1)
Two gates stand on this route. The first is sequence. The contractor’s liability in damages under Article 667(2) of the Korean Civil Act arises only where the seller is subject to a petition for commencement of rehabilitation proceedings, a petition for bankruptcy, dissolution, insolvency or a comparable circumstance (Article 9(3)). Where the seller remains solvent, claiming damages directly from the contractor is difficult. The second is time. Rights must be exercised within ten years for defects in principal structural parts and ground work, and within a period of up to five years prescribed by Presidential Decree for other defects, running for common areas from the date of use inspection or use approval (Article 9-2).
Because of those two gates, real cases tend to take a detour of one step. Recovering directly from the contractor is difficult for unit owners; instead the seller compensates first and then pursues the contractor under the construction contract. And the drawings defense does its work precisely at that final step.
A recent judgment shows the sequence exactly. Unit owners sued the seller and the contractor together; the claim against the contractor was dismissed because the requirements of Article 9(3) were not met, leaving the seller alone to bear the repair costs. The seller then pursued the contractor for warranty liability under the construction contract. The contractor argued that the bathroom windows and the underground parking ramp had been built in accordance with the as-built drawings the project owner had directed, and the court accepted this, citing 95Da24975. Of total repair costs of KRW 464,703,582, those two items — KRW 49,340,409 — were deducted, leaving KRW 415,363,173 (Seoul High Court, May 2, 2025, 2024Na2054189).
Second, tort. Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry provides that “where a construction business operator causes damage to another person by defectively performing construction work intentionally or negligently, it shall be liable to compensate for such damage.” This is not a no-fault liability: defective performance and intent or negligence must be proved by the party asserting them. The court in the sprinkler case dismissed the claim precisely because that proof fell short. This is where the “we built to the drawings” defense carries its weight.
An insurer’s claim rests on subrogation under Article 682 of the Korean Commercial Act. Subrogation, however, transfers the right the injured party already held; if that party could not have claimed against the contractor in the first place, neither can the insurer. In the sprinkler case the insurer pleaded tort and non-performance, both routes failed, and the claim was dismissed in full.
9. What actually decides these cases?
The weight of the “we built to the drawings” defense varies with the cause of action pleaded. Separating the routes makes the picture clear.
| Basis of claim | Statute | Effect of the drawings defense | Fault | Contract required |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warranty liability (construction contract) |
Korean Civil Act, Articles 667, 669 Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 28 |
Statutory exemption (Article 669 main clause; Article 28(2)2) — withdrawn by each proviso | Not required (no-fault) | Required |
| Warranty liability (condominium) |
Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, Article 9 | Statute applies Civil Act Articles 667 and 668 mutatis mutandis | Not required (no-fault) | Not required — owed directly to sectional owners |
| Liability for non-performance | Korean Civil Act, Article 390 | Article 669 main clause does not apply (2019Da268252) | Required | Required |
| Tort | Korean Civil Act, Article 750; Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 44(1) | Material to the finding of negligence (2025Gadan79742) | Required (claimant proves) | Not required |
Whichever route is taken, the outcome turns on the same three facts.
First, was the work built to the drawings? Without proof of this, nothing else begins. That is exactly where the window frames and the glazing parted company in 95Da24975. Design documents, specifications and records permitting comparison with what was actually built must survive.
Second, did the contractor know, or could it have known, that the drawings were unsuitable? 2014Da31691 measured this by a professional standard. Where the mismatch is technically obvious, a plea of ignorance is unlikely to succeed.
Third, if it knew, did it say so — and does that survive in the record? 94Da31747 accepted notice to the construction supervisor as sufficient, but only because such notice was established on the evidence. Written notices, supervision instructions and site diaries showing date and content are what make the argument available.
It is worth remembering as well that defects are assessed as of the time of construction (2005Da56193). A standard tightened years later does not retroactively convert past work into a defect, so preserving the statutes, technical standards and approved documents applicable when the work was done matters as much in a real dispute as the drawings themselves.
10. What this means for foreign developers and contractors in South Korea
For a foreign company building or commissioning work in South Korea — including within the Incheon Free Economic Zone (IFEZ), which comprises Songdo International Business District, Cheongna International City and Yeongjong International City — three features of this framework differ from what many civil law and common law systems assume.
The exemption is statutory, not contractual. Article 669 of the Korean Civil Act and Article 28(2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry operate by force of statute. A contractor does not need a contractual clause allocating design risk in order to raise the defense; conversely, a project owner cannot assume that silence in the contract leaves design risk with the builder.
The professional duty to speak is real and is measured objectively. 2014Da31691 imposed liability on a contractor that had built exactly what the signed contract specified, because a competent civil engineering firm would have recognized the method as unsuitable. Foreign project owners sometimes expect a contractor to build precisely to instruction and nothing more; South Korean law expects the contractor to raise an objection when the instruction is technically wrong, and penalizes silence.
Condominium liability runs directly to buyers but is gated. Under Article 9 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, a contractor owes warranty liability to sectional owners with whom it has no contract. That exposure is real, but Article 9(3) confines the damages claim to cases where the seller is insolvent or comparably distressed, and Article 9-2 imposes outside periods of ten and five years. A foreign contractor assessing residual exposure on a completed project should read those two provisions together with the construction contract, not in isolation.
The practical documents to preserve are the same everywhere: the design documents and specifications as issued, the record of what was actually built, and any written objection raised to the project owner or the construction supervisor. In South Korean practice the third of these is the one most often missing.
11. Frequently asked questions
Q. I built exactly what the project owner’s drawings showed and a defect appeared. Am I liable?
As a rule, no warranty liability arises. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that where the contractor under a construction contract has built in accordance with the entries in the design drawings, this is the same as following the instruction of the person who ordered the work, and unless the contractor knew that the drawings were unsuitable and failed to inform that person, warranty liability cannot be imposed (Supreme Court of Korea, May 14, 1996, 95Da24975). Article 669 of the Korean Civil Act is the basis, and Article 28(2)2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry likewise treats work performed in accordance with the project owner’s instruction as a ground of exemption. This concerns warranty liability only; liability for non-performance and liability in tort are not automatically excluded.
Q. I used a different product of identical specification and it works fine. Is that a defect?
It may be. The Supreme Court of Korea considered specifications requiring an elevator from a named manufacturer where the contractor installed a cheaper unit of identical specification from another maker that later became insolvent. Although the elevator had operated for about two years without serious failure and another firm held spare parts, the Court held that there was no assurance parts would remain available through the elevator’s durable life, and that for an elevator, on which passenger safety directly depends, such a defect cannot be dismissed as unimportant. The lower court’s contrary holding was reversed (Supreme Court of Korea, May 14, 1996, 95Da24975).
Q. Can a contractor be liable even after building exactly what the contract specified?
Yes. The Supreme Court of Korea considered a contract that expressly recorded a rubble stone method and was performed accordingly. While accepting that this might be regarded as the same as following the owner’s instruction, the Court held that the contractor, as a professional in civil engineering and construction work, had a fundamental duty to assess the safety, solidity and suitability of the retaining walls, and should have informed the owner and had the method corrected if it judged the method unsuitable. Warranty liability was imposed (Supreme Court of Korea, August 18, 2016, 2014Da31691, 31707). The sections at issue had been built to seven meters and 5.8 meters using a method ordinarily applied at two meters or less.
Q. I raised the problem with the construction supervisor and was told to proceed. Where does that leave me?
That may be treated as discharging the duty to inform. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that a construction supervisor, appointed and engaged by the building owner and acting for that owner, confirms with professional discretion whether the work follows the design documents and directs the builder; accordingly, where the contractor reported a circumstance arising during construction to the supervisor and continued in accordance with the original design documents on the supervisor’s instruction, it cannot be said that the contractor knew the documents were unsuitable and failed to inform (Supreme Court of Korea, October 13, 1995, 94Da31747, 31754). The argument is available only if the exchange survives in the record.
Q. If warranty liability is excluded, is compensation excluded as well?
No. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that where a defect exists in the object completed under a construction contract, the contractor’s warranty liability and its liability for non-performance are recognized concurrently on separate grounds, and that the main clause of Article 669 of the Korean Civil Act concerns warranty liability and does not apply to liability for non-performance under Article 390 (Supreme Court of Korea, January 30, 2020, 2019Da268252). In the field of non-performance, therefore, following the drawings is not a statutory exemption, and the contractor must separately establish that it bears no attributable fault.
Q. A material permitted when we built is not acceptable under current standards. Is it a defect?
In principle the standard at the time of construction applies. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that whether a defect exists must be determined by considering in the aggregate the contents of the contract, whether the structure was built in accordance with the design drawings, and whether it conforms to the standards prescribed by construction-related statutes; and, where a standard had been tightened, that the construction practice and the level of technology at the time of building must also be weighed (Supreme Court of Korea, June 26, 2008, 2005Da56193, 2005Da56209 (consolidated)). A lower court has likewise held that refraining from using chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) sprinkler pipe was not a duty of care required in 2017.
Q. An insurer has claimed subrogation from us after an apartment water damage incident. What must it prove?
The insurer must prove defective performance together with intent or negligence on the contractor’s part. Article 44(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry imposes liability where a construction business operator causes damage to another intentionally or negligently, so it is not a no-fault liability. In a case where an insurer that had paid KRW 52,382,149 claimed eighty percent of that sum, KRW 41,905,719, the court found it difficult to recognize any defect in the work or any intent or negligence, and dismissed the claim in full (Seoul Central District Court, February 25, 2026, 2025Gadan79742).
Q. Can residents who never contracted with the contractor still bring a claim?
Not for non-performance, but two other routes remain. A court has held that a contractor that merely undertook the work under a contract awarded by the project owner, and did not contract directly with the affected units, bears no liability for non-performance toward them (Seoul Central District Court, February 25, 2026, 2025Gadan79742). Under Article 9(1) of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, however, both the seller and the contractor owe warranty liability to sectional owners, subject to the seller’s insolvency requirement in Article 9(3) and the periods in Article 9-2. Tort is the other route, requiring proof of intent or negligence and defective performance by the claimant.
This article summarizes general principles drawn from published decisions of the Supreme Court of Korea, two lower court judgments, and the statutes in force. Publicly available sources do not confirm whether either lower court judgment cited above — Seoul Central District Court, February 25, 2026, 2025Gadan79742, and Seoul High Court, May 2, 2025, 2024Na2054189 — became final. The outcome of any particular case will depend on the precise terms of the design documents and specifications, the statutes and technical standards applicable when the work was performed, the record of the supervision process, and the cause of action pleaded.
