Court Mandates Repair of Even Microscopic Apartment Cracks
A recent court ruling has established that even the smallest hairline cracks in apartment exterior walls must be repaired according to strict standards, as they can pose a safety risk. The Incheon District Court’s Civil Division 16 ruled partially in favor of apartment residents who filed a lawsuit against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (LH) seeking compensation for construction defects.
Significant Damages Awarded for Construction Flaws
The court ordered LH, the developer and seller of the apartments, to pay 901 million won out of the 975.96 million won sought by the residents’ representative council. Additionally, LH was assigned 90% of the lawsuit costs, with the residents’ council responsible for the remaining 10%.
The residents’ council had initiated the lawsuit, alleging that LH failed to follow design specifications during construction, leading to defects such as water leaks and cracks in common areas. A key point of contention was the method of repairing cracks in the exterior walls. The residents argued that the ‘impact-type crack repair method’ should be used and sought compensation for the associated construction costs.
LH’s Defense Rejected by Court
LH had contended that cracks less than 0.3mm in width were not structural defects and could be adequately addressed with ‘surface treatment methods.’ However, the court disagreed, stating that even minor cracks are considered structural issues within the building’s framework and require repair using the impact-type method.
Court Emphasizes Long-Term Safety Concerns
The court referenced a precedent from the Seoul Central District Court’s Construction Dispute Resolution Committee, which mandates the use of the impact-type method for exterior wall cracks regardless of their width. The ruling highlighted that cracks in exterior walls are significant defects affecting the building’s structural integrity. If left unrepaired for extended periods, even hairline cracks can allow water infiltration, leading to steel corrosion and crack expansion, ultimately jeopardizing building safety.
Regarding LH’s proposed surface treatment method, the court stated that it merely conceals the cracks without addressing the underlying issue. This method carries the risk of the defects recurring and may not provide a fundamental solution.
The court also dismissed LH’s argument that cracks in apartment ceilings and floors were not major structural defects and that the warranty period had expired. The ruling underscores the importance of addressing all structural defects comprehensively to ensure resident safety and building longevity.
