공동주택 하자보수보증 법리에 관한 연구

In this thesis, I studied major subjects of the security deposit for repairing defects of an apartment house. The Supreme Court says that the legal nature of the security deposit for repairing defects is ‘the liquidate damages’ or ‘the amount of damages specially determined in advance’ in the case when the contractor does not accept the request of the person who ordered work within the period of guarantee, the security for repairing defects belongs to the creditor(a person who ordered work). In general case of ‘the liquidate damages’, the creditor cannot claim excess damages even though the damages of creditor exceed the estimated amount, but there is an exception in the event of a special arrangement is made. Such a special contract can also be made apocalyptically, and this situation may be the background of the judicial precedent which says the legal nature of the security deposit for repairing defects is ‘a kind of forfeit’. But handing the security deposit for repairing defects to a guarantor is a kind of deposit for security and therefore it is simply taken as deposit for damages. A creditor can claim the excess of amount with a claim for damages without collateral when a contractor defaults in his payment. Many standardized contracts concerning security for repairing defects in a contract of suretyship guarantee the defects which break out after an inspection for the use of an apartment and within the period of guarantee. A certain defect might be applied repeatedly to more than two security contracts for repairing defects, even though the construction company and the Korea Construction Financial Cooperative make a security contract for repairing defects in specifying the statement of items of defects.