Daewoo E&C vehemently denied reports that stated there is an internal guideline instructing to arbitrarily reduce the placement of rebar if the schedule is tight. Daewoo E&C noted that the reported building was designed by the project developer, thus their guidelines do not apply, and the problematic guideline was distorted by exaggerating only certain phrases.
On the 14th, Daewoo E&C stated in a position paper titled "We would like to inform you from Daewoo E&C" that "the informant has extracted and distorted certain phrases from the design guidelines."
According to the Dong-A Ilbo on the same day, Daewoo E&C wrote in the 'Apartment and Underground Parking Structure Design Guidelines' that "if the design schedule is insufficient, reduce the reinforcement placement arbitrarily and proceed with submission." Additionally, the details also included a breakdown of structural design stages with points indicating 'cost reduction effects' for each item.
It also assigned five points to the explanation stating, "Minimize to barely satisfy displacement (level of shaking). If excessive, only construction costs will increase." There were also phrases such as, "One must not arbitrarily apply additional safety margins beyond the established standards" and "No reinforcement should be added that is not based on interpretation (design calculations)."
Daewoo E&C explained that the expression "reduce reinforcement placement for submission due to insufficient schedule" is part of a statement explaining special circumstances that may arise during the intermediate design phase, not the final design. The guideline clearly outlines subsequent stages that enhance design completeness, such as "detailed structural calculations and reinforcement design (approximately 3 months required)" and "final document submission" following the phrase "reduce reinforcement placement for submission due to insufficient schedule."
Daewoo E&C said, "In a Fast Track approach, where design and construction proceed concurrently to optimize the project duration, the initial rough design is conducted first, followed by completing detailed structural calculations and reinforcement design before the actual construction."
It added, "In practice, construction only proceeds after the final documents signed by the architect and relevant technical experts are submitted to the inspector." In actual practice, the final drawings must be prepared before architects and relevant technical experts can sign the documents, and construction starts only after the signed documents are submitted to the on-site inspector.
Daewoo E&C expressed doubts about the informant's intentions, stating, "Despite the existence of a step-by-step procedure throughout the design, the informant's side distorted it by extracting only certain phrases from the guideline to imply that we are applying reduced rebar during regular construction."
It also denied any relevance to the site in Bulgwang-dong, Eunpyeong-gu mentioned in the reports. The reports stated, "The guideline was revealed during a legal dispute between the construction company Daewoo E&C's subsidiary Daewoo ST and the project developer Inno Global regarding poor construction of the rental apartment 'Prugio Ballad' in Bulgwang-dong."
Daewoo E&C explained, "In this project, the project developer conducts the design and provides the drawings, and we construct according to the provided drawings," stating that 'there was no room for our structural design guidelines to be applied.'
Regarding the safety controversy, it refuted the claims based on the results of a court appraisal. Daewoo E&C explained, "The recent court appraisal report confirmed a safety rating of A for the building and concluded that there were no issues with the construction procedures or drawings."
Daewoo E&C stated, "There are no issues with the procedures in the construction process or the construction drawings, and it has been confirmed that the previously problematic omission of a small section of the tie rebar has also been properly reinforced," adding, "It appears that the informant, who judged that future litigation may become unfavorable based on these court appraisal results, distorted certain phrases of our internal guidelines to mislead the facts and damage our image for litigation purposes."