Construction Payment Litigation Case | A Strategy That Reduced Liability on Appeal in a Large-Scale Construction Payment Dispute

The attorney specializing in construction emphasized that, in determining defects in waterproofing work, consideration should be given not only to whether the construction standards were met but also to whether functional problems such as water leakage actually occurred in the course of actual use.

In particular, on the basis that no water leakage or problem in use had arisen for a considerable period after the completion of the work, the attorney persuasively presented the point that it was excessive to determine, on the ground of a partial failure to meet construction standards, that all of the existing waterproofing should be removed and reconstructed.

In addition, explaining that waterproofing work is, by its structural nature, a type of work for which repair or reconstruction is anticipated at regular intervals, the attorney organized as a principal line of argument on appeal the point that a cost calculation premised on full reconstruction without taking this into account was not reasonable.

Because the first-instance judgment in this case was rendered in heavy reliance on the appraisal result, pointing out the appraisal process and its limits was one of the key issues on appeal.

The attorney specializing in construction raised the issue centering on the point that the appraisal result adopted at the first instance did not sufficiently reflect the characteristics of waterproofing work and the actual construction circumstances.

Pointing out that, although the coating thickness was measured in only some sections during the appraisal process, that result was applied as it stood to the entire construction area, the attorney emphasized that it was difficult to conclude the scope of defects for the entire project on the basis of partial measurement results alone.

The attorney also pointed out that whether water leakage actually occurred and the management and inspection process at the time of construction had not been sufficiently considered in the appraisal process, and argued that caution was required in calculating the scope of damages on the premise of the appraisal result as it stood.

With respect to the liquidated damages for delay, the response centered on the point that the determination of the time of completion of the work was erroneous.

Because liquidated damages for delay are an amount that accumulates on a daily basis where the work is determined to have been delayed, the time of completion was an issue on which the scale of liability varied greatly.

Accordingly, the attorney specializing in construction explained that the principal work had been completed at a particular point and that the work carried out thereafter was no more than supplementary work.

The attorney also organized the point that various external factors affecting the work schedule had existed during the construction, such as changes in the circumstances of the ordering party, constraints relating to the delivery of materials, and requests for additional work not included in the contract, and emphasized that it was not reasonable to recognize the lengthy number of days of delay as it stood.

Through this, the attorney made clear on appeal that it was difficult to attribute responsibility for the construction delay solely to the client.

A construction payment litigation is a dispute in which various factors operate in combination, such as the standard for determining defects, the credibility of the appraisal result, and the attribution of responsibility for the construction delay

As in this case, there are not a few instances in which the scope of defects is expanded excessively or the appraisal result leads directly to the calculation of liability.

To draw out a substantial result in a construction payment litigation, the assertions and evidence must be connected organically, with an understanding not only of the contents of the contract but also of the site circumstances and the characteristics of the work.

In construction payment disputes, this firm provides assistance through the following step-by-step strategy so that excessive liability is not confirmed as it stands.

In addition, with a substantial number of attorneys specializing in construction registered with the Korean Bar Association, the firm provides a tailored response strategy suited to the nature of the case and the client's situation.

If you require legal assistance in a situation similar to that described above, please at any time 🔗Legal Consultation Reservation and prepare a response strategy.