Housing Defect Assessment through Household Scale and General Contractor Level

Abstract

Consumer dissatisfaction and damage are increasing worldwide due to the increase in defects caused by the decline in housing quality, and disputes over housing defects are expanding. The number of housing units, a representative standard related to housing quality, is used in Canada, Japan, and Korea. Generally, quality costs increase as the number of housing units increases, and each country’s laws apply stricter management standards. Therefore, the quality is expected to be better as the number of units increases. In 2020, South Korea added a new regulation requiring inspections by a quality inspection team by a public institution only when building housing complexes with more than 300 households. There is a debate about whether this direction of regulation is appropriate. This study examines whether the number of households is being used appropriately as a criterion related to housing quality. It aims to determine whether the limit of 300 households is appropriate for distinguishing housing quality. In addition, since the contractor’s role is vital in housing construction, the contractor’s capabilities and supply–demand relationship were also considered as factors affecting housing quality. The ratio of defect repair costs to construction costs was used as a quality measure for 285 housing complexes in Korea. Generally, the lower the defect repair–construction costs ratio, the better the quality. A comparative study was conducted through a variance analysis on the scale of 300 households and the status of the contractor’s capability, whether they were among the top 10 construction companies with excellent construction performance, and whether a sole contract was made. The results showed that the quality was better in the cases with 300 or more households than in the cases with fewer than 300 households. The quality was better in the cases built by higher-ranking contractors than in those built by other contractors, but there was no difference according to supply-and-demand relationships. The results of the comprehensive analysis indicated that the quality was better when higher-ranking contractors built housing complexes with 300 or more households than when lower-ranking contractors built housing complexes with fewer than 300 households. Therefore, the direction of the Korean regulation requiring quality inspections for housing complexes with more than 300 households is incorrect and should be improved to regulate housing complexes with fewer than 300 households, and of low quality. In addition, the standard of determining housing quality based solely on the number of households should be revised, and the direction should be changed to strengthen quality control and the public supervision of housing built by low-capacity contractors. If the results of this study are utilized with this view in mind, a reasonable system to protect housing consumers will be promoted.