The Supreme Court rendered the Tai-Shang-1879 Civil Decision of March 14, 2018 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that whether the work of a contractor is completed should be observed based on the details about a contract, and it is not true that all unfinished work can be included in the scope of the contractor’s warranty due to the contractor’s warranty liabilities for quality assurance and defect correction.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that it was the contractor of the Defendant’s project at issue. In particular, road damage was subsequently and successively found after the new road modification was completed. Since the Defendant instructed that the road modification work at issue should be completed, construction payment for such requested portion was claimed. The Defendant contended that after the project at issue was completed, a series of defective roadbeds emerged, resulting in defects such as road damage. Therefore, the Plaintiff was notified to correct the defects and the construction payment for correcting the defects certainly was not warranted. The original trial court ruled against the Plaintiff. Dissatisfied, the Plaintiff appealed.
According to the Decision, unfinished work of a contractor is different from defective work as completed. Whether the work of a contractor is completed should be observed based on the details about a contract, and it is not true that all unfinished work can be included in the scope of the contractor’s warranty due to the contractor’s warranty liabilities for quality assurance and defect correction.
It was further pointed out in the Decision that the road modification work at issue handled by the Plaintiff should be completed as part of the new road modification work. If the Plaintiff failed to engage in the construction pursuant to the contract, the new road modification work was not completed and construction should continue until it was completed. Therefore, if the Defendant did not make the construction payment for the unfinished new road modification work, whether the Plaintiff could claim compensation after the road modification work at issue was completed should be further explored. The original decision, which directly held that the cost of the defect correction should be assumed by the contractor, was reversed and remanded on the ground of legal violation.