Refund Claim for Poor Waterproofing Service 게시글 상세보기 - 등록일, 조회수, 첨부파일, 상세내용, 이전글, 다음글 제공
Refund Claim for Poor Waterproofing Service
Date
2024-12-10
Hit
209
A. On November 17, 2021, the Claimant and the Respondent entered into a service contract (“Contract”) for waterproofing (“Waterproofing Service”). The Claimant paid KRW 850,000 to the Respondent as service fee.
B. When the Respondent reported that the waterproofing membrane in the bathroom was cracked, the Claimant demanded that the floor be replaced. However, the Respondent suggested that repair was available without replacing the entire floor tiling and the Claimant accepted the Respondent's proposal, followed by reinforcement with silicone sealant, sewer repair, application of waterproofing chemicals, and replacement of toilet bowl (KRW 200,000) and faucet (KRW 50,000).
C. The Claimant complained that water leaked to the ceiling downstairs, and the Respondent asserted that the water leak would be stopped after about a month. After being away from home for a month, however, water was still leaking through the ceiling when the Claimant took a shower; the Claimant paid KRW 1,700,000 to have the bathroom rebuilt by another contractor and demanded a refund from the Respondent for poor Waterproofing Service.
D. According to our expert’s opinion dated October 19, 2022, the Waterproofing Service is not a correct solution but a temporary measure to save on construction costs. In principle, the concrete foundation should have been waterproofed after removing the tiles. The expert concluded that the Respondent should refund the service fee since water was still leaking downstairs.
A. Claimant’s AllegationThe Claimant claims that the Respondent’s Waterproofing Service was poorly done and the water leak was only resolved after the Claimant hired another contractor. The Claimant demands a refund of KRW 600,000 as the service fee excluding the cost of the toilet bowl and faucet.
B. Respondent’s AllegationThe Respondent asserts that the Waterproofing Service was well done and the Claimant agreed to wait for one or two months; by the way, the site was checked three times at the request of the downstairs neighbor, and it was found that the amount of leak was gradually decreasing; thus, the Respondent has no obligation to refund.The Respondent also alleges that the Respondent turned on the water for 30 minutes and confirmed that no water came down the ceiling for an hour following the Claimant’s complaint. The Respondent tried to check the leak again the next morning, but the Claimant refused.
The Contract is a contract for work under Article 664 of the Civil Act, which becomes effective when one of the parties agrees to perform a certain job and the other agrees to pay remuneration for the result of such work.According to Article 667(1) of the same Act, if any defect exists in the completed subject matter of a work or in a specific part of the subject matter of a work that has been done before the completion of all the work, the person who ordered the work may fix a reasonable period for the contractor to repair and rectify such defect, provided that this shall not apply if the defect is not material and if its rectification would involve excessive expense.The Respondent alleges that the Claimant also agreed to monitor the water leak for one or two months. However, it is normal for a water leak to be resolved almost immediately after the waterproofing membrane is repaired. Although the Claimant did not live in the house for a month and did not use the toilet, the downstairs neighbor still complained of water leak. According to our expert’s opinion, the Waterproofing Service is not a correct solution but a temporary measure to save on construction costs. In principle, the concrete foundation should have been waterproofed after removing the tiles. The expert concluded that the Respondent should refund the service fee since water was still leaking downstairs. The Claimant hired another contractor to perform additional construction 49 days after the Waterproofing Service. Therefore, it is reasonably believed that water still leaked to the ceiling downstairs due to a defect in the Waterproofing Service.According to Article 393 of the same Act, the compensation for damages arising from default should be limited to ordinary damages. The obligor is liable for damages that have arisen through extraordinary circumstances only if the obligor had foreseen or could have foreseen such circumstances. Due to the poor Waterproofing Service, the Claimant did not achieve the purpose of stopping the leak in the toilet at all. As a result, the Claimant paid an additional fee of KRW 1,700,000, which was more than double the amount of the Contract to resolve the water leak. Therefore, the Respondent should refund KRW 600,000 from the service fee of KRW 850,000, less the cost of the toilet bowl (KRW 200,000) and faucet (KRW 50,000).
1. The Claimant shall be awarded KRW 600,000 by February 23, 2022.2. Any overdue amount shall be paid with delay penalties amounting to 6% p.a. for each day within the period from February 24, 2022 until paid.
(Applicable Laws: Civil Act, Articles 644 and 667; Commercial Act, Article 54)
