[1] The meaning of a contract under a package deal design and construction method (Turn-Key Base)

[2] The case holding that where it is impossible to achieve the original purpose of the contract for automation facilities contract in the design and construction method on a package deal basis, it may refuse to perform the obligation to pay part payments and immediately cancel the contract

[1] The term "contractor-Key Base contract" means a contract under which the contractor should prepare a design document suitable for the purpose of the construction work which the contractor wishes to do, prepare the design document according to the purpose of the construction work, carry out the construction work on his own, guarantee the performance of the construction work, thereby achieving the desired purpose of the contractor.

[2] The case holding that even if the obligation of a contractor to pay part payments was omitted in the contract for automation of the design and package deal with design and package deal with work, when the success in the trial operation has been unclear due to serious defects in the automation facility concerned, the contractor may refuse to pay part payments until the success in the trial operation in relation to his obligation to pay part payments, and the contract may be rescinded immediately without providing part payments, where it is impossible for the contractor to pay part payments for a long period of time, or it is impossible to achieve the original purpose of the contract even if the defect is not significant and remuneration, and the contract termination does not go against the good faith principle.

[1] Article 664 of the Civil Code, Article 668 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 536 (2) of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da41559 delivered on August 12, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2280) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da60632, 60649 delivered on December 22, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 619)

Two Industrial Machinery Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Choi & Lee, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Robve Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na24044 delivered on February 28, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal together with the supplementary statement.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The so-called package deal design and construction contract under the package deal contract refers to a contract under which a contractor should prepare a design and design meeting the purpose of the construction work which the contractor wishess, implement the construction work by himself based on the design and design meeting the purpose of the construction work, and guarantee the performance of the construction work, thereby achieving the desired purpose of the contractor (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da41559 delivered on August 12, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant has produced boilers including household boilers with non-party 1 corporation since its establishment in 1971. The court below decided to automation of the manufacturing process among the manufacturing process of inland boiler which had been previously operated for the purpose of improving productivity around 198. The defendant selected all of the specialized companies necessary for the construction of the system, such as procurement of materials necessary for installation, installation work, and technical guidance for users, and then entered into a contract with the defendant's construction work for the construction of the Incheon Metropolitan Government (the plaintiff's construction work and construction work for the 1971). The plaintiff's construction work and construction work for the construction of the Incheon Metropolitan Government's construction work for the construction of the 1971. The plaintiff's construction work for the construction of the 1971. The plaintiff's construction work for the 19.

According to the records, in addition to the manufacturing process of the automation equipment supplied by the plaintiff during each process of the automation equipment of this case, each voltage test is conducted after the process of the 4th and the 10th process and the process of combining internal and external water with the 7th process. In order to achieve the automatic usage of this case, the process performed by the automation equipment of this case is insufficient, and the defendant's work should be performed by laying the divers to the dental section. However, the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant can be seen as having the plaintiff responsible for the design, manufacture, installation, test and performance of the automation equipment of this case excluding the manufacturing process to be performed by the defendant, or the manufacturing process, installation of the automatic equipment of this case excluding the manufacturing process by the defendant's work manager excluding the manufacturing process of this case or the manufacturing process by the defendant's work manager excluding the installation of the automatic equipment of this case. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the above reasons are different from the terms and conditions of the contract of this case, or that the automatic equipment of this case dics are essential to the design specifications of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the court below's determination that the contract of this case was a contract for design and package deal (Turn-Key Bse) method based on the above facts of recognition is just, and there is no error of violating the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal nature of the contract of this case like the theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for argument.

2. On the second ground for appeal

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 거시 증거에 의하여, 이 사건 자동화시스템은 모두 10개의 공정으로 이루어져 있고 각 그 일부 공정은 다시 치구 1, 치구 2 등으로 나뉘어져 있는바, 용접자동화가 이루어지려면 제1공정에 투입된 피용접물이 하나로 연결된 10개의 공정을 차례차례 모두 거쳐야 하고 그와 같이 모든 공정을 거친 피용접물의 용접품질이 정상적일 때에 비로소 이 사건 시스템이 정상작동하는 것이라고 할 수 있는바, 이 사건 시스템의 시운전과정에서 원·피고 기술진이 보일러의 수압성능테스트 합격기준을 상대압력 4㎏/㎠으로 하기로 합의하고 시운전을 하여 보니 제1공정부터 누수현상이 일어나 이 사건 용접시스템으로는 수밀성을 유지할 수 없음이 드러났으며, 원·피고는 이 사건 계약시 이 사건 시스템에 의하여 1일 500대 이상을 생산할 수 있도록 원고가 그 용접속도에 관한 성능을 보장하기로 하였는바(계약서 제1조 제7항), 이는 이 사건 10개 공정 중 가장 긴 것으로 산정한 제1공정의 용접시간(Maximum Tact Time)인 48.4초를 기준으로 하여 1일 8시간 동안 시스템을 85% 가동할 경우 506대를 생산할 수 있다는 산식에서 근거한 것이나, 실제에 있어서는 개별 공정에 따른 최대작업시간은 제5공정의 64.5초가 가장 긴 것으로 이에 따라 1일 생산량을 산출하면 379대{3,600초×8시간×0.85(가동률)/64.5초}에 불과하므로 당초 원고가 약정한 바와 같은 1일 500대의 생산은 불가능하고, 원고가 제공한 이 사건 로봇의 제작사인 일본 나스토아사의 지침서에 따르면 이 사건 용접기에 의한 지정 용접속도는 필렛(Fillet)용접의 경우에는 350 내지 450㎜/sec, 버트(Butt)용접의 경우에는 450 내지 550㎜/sec에 불과한데, 원고는 이 사건 자동화시스템의 경우 시운전시 필렛용접 800 내지 900㎜/sec, 버트용접 750㎜/sec로 작업하였고 따라서 용접속도를 800㎜/sec로 계산하여 1일 506대로 추산한 것인바, 결국 위와 같이 제작사 매뉴얼에 따른 권장속도의 2배에 가까운 속도로 무리하게 용접함으로써 고속에 의한 과열 및 용접불량의 소지를 낳고 시운전시 작업불량의 주원인이 되었으며, 이 사건 공정 가운데 몇 개의 공정은 그 성공적인 가동을 위하여 센서를 부착하여 지능화할 필요가 인정되므로 원고로서는 센서의 부착 문제를 피고와 협의하여 지능화를 구현하든가 또는 다른 적절한 방법을 강구하였어야 하는데 이를 간과하였고, 제1공정부터 제10공정까지 공정별로 그 판시와 같은 하자가 있음을 인정한 다음, 원고가 제작한 이 사건 자동화시스템은 위와 같은 하자가 있고 그 하자는 중대하고 핵심적인 부분의 하자 보완이 불가능하여 현재의 시스템 또는 하자 보완을 거친 시스템으로는 위 10개 공정을 가동하였을 때 원고가 계약시 그 성능 및 생산량을 보장한 바 있는 내통 보일러의 생산목적을 달성할 수 없을 것으로 보여지므로, 결국 이 사건 자동화시스템으로는 이 사건 도급계약의 목적을 달성할 수 없다고 판단하였다.

그런데 관계 증거를 기록과 대조하여 살펴보면, 원고가 이 사건 자동화설비를 1989. 4. 14. 피고의 대구공장에 설치하고 같은 날로부터 같은 해 5. 4.까지 연동시운전을 마친 후 수차에 걸쳐 성능 실험을 하여 그 때마다 피고측 책임자로부터 확인을 받고 그 실험결과에 따른 하자 보완 작업을 반복하였는바, 1987. 7. 10.까지의 용접시운전의 결과, 제1, 2공정의 수압시험(합격기준: 4㎏/㎠)에서 누수가 발생하였고 제3공정 내지 제8공정에서 용접불량 등 하자가 발견되었으나, 같은 해 7. 27.에 이르러서는 제1 내지 제3공정이 정상가동 중에 있었고 나머지 공정은 피고가 제공한 피용접물(work piece)의 규격화가 이루어지지 않는 등의 이유로 용접불량 등의 하자가 남아 있었으며, 같은 해 9. 1.에는 전체 공정 중 용접이 되지 않는 공정은 없고 제5공정의 수압시험에도 이상이 없었으나 피용접물의 규격 불일치 등의 이유로 제4공정에 보완, 개선할 점이 남아 있었고, 같은 해 10. 27.에는 제1 내지 제4공정은 이미 생산작업에 사용되어 1일 170대 내지 180대가 생산되고 있었고 제5 내지 제7공정도 하자 없이 즉시 작업이 가능하였으나 제8공정은 피용접물의 규격 불균일, 부품 투입방법의 불안정 등으로 원만한 용접이 되지 않았고 제9, 10공정도 피용접물의 편차를 보정하는 방법을 완비하지 않아 원만한 용접이 되지 않았던 사실을 알 수 있는바, 위와 같이 수차에 걸친 성능 실험과 그에 따른 하자 보완 작업의 결과 1989. 10.에 이르러서는 이 사건 자동화설비 공정 중 제1 내지 제7공정은 실제 피고에 의하여 확인받은 원고의 성능실험 결과 하자가 없었고 그 중 제1 내지 제4공정은 실제 생산에 사용되었으며, 1987. 7. 10.까지의 용접시운전의 결과 제1, 2공정의 수압시험(기준치: 4㎏/㎠)에서 누수현상이 있었으나 위 수밀성에 관한 하자가 보완된 결과 그 후의 수압시험에서는 이 사건 용접시스템의 수밀성에 문제점이 발견되지 않은 이상, 원심의 위 사실인정 중 위 수밀성에 관한 하자 부분과 제1내지 제7공정에 관한 하자 부분은 채증법칙을 위배하여 사실을 오인한 것이라 하지 않을 수 없다.

However, in comparison with the relevant evidence, the court below's finding the remainder of defects is just, and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, etc., and according to Article 1 (2) of the contract document (Evidence A (Evidence A) of this case, "it is possible to produce more than 500 vehicles per day on the basis of not less than 8 hours operation" as one of the items among the purposes of installation of the automation equipment of this case. The contract on production by the automation equipment of this case can not be said to constitute an important content of the contract as long as the purpose of establishment of the automation equipment of this case is to reduce labor volume and improve productivity (Article 1 (1) of the contract). Thus, among the defects of the automation equipment of this case, it is important that the above recognition's defect cannot be achieved with the installation of 500 unit air boiler production of this case on the basis of the defect of the automation equipment of this case, and it can not be resolved within a considerable period of time through mutual supplement and correction work. Accordingly, it cannot be achieved the purpose of this contract of this case.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the purpose of the contract of this case cannot be achieved because there are defects such as a daily contract production price in the automation system of this case, is just, and the illegality of the judgment of the court below in violation of the rules of evidence as to the recognition of some defects among the defects in the automation system of this case, which is the premise of the judgment, did not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is without merit.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, the Defendant did not pay an intermediate payment (Article 8(b) of the contract amount corresponding to 60% of the contract amount to be paid to the Plaintiff when entering the Defendant factory at the time of concluding the contract of this case. However, the Plaintiff did not demand the Defendant to pay the intermediate payment until May 1989, which commenced the performance test of the automation equipment of this case. The automation equipment of this case did not work normally due to repeated defects after the performance test immediately after the Defendant’s factory entry, and even if the process was operated normally but the entire process did not run once more than 7 times, it can not be seen that the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the intermediate payment was considerably more than 50 percent of the contract amount to be paid to the Plaintiff, even if it was impossible for the Plaintiff to pay the intermediate payment of this case to the Plaintiff at the time of the contract of this case. Thus, even if it was impossible for the Plaintiff to pay the intermediate payment of this case to the Plaintiff, as the result of partial operation of the contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the intermediate payment directly to the Plaintiff.

The court below is justified in holding that the system of this case has a fundamental defect, such as the volume of contact and the volume of water density caused by error in the calculation of the connection, and it cannot be resolved by mutual supplementation and modification work within a considerable period of time. Thus, under such circumstances, the defendant can cancel the contract immediately without providing an obligation to pay part payments, and the defendant's right to cancel cannot be deemed to be contrary to the good faith principle, even though there are no improper points in its reasoning, it is just to make the same purport as the above determination of the party members, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the termination of the contract or the good faith principle. The argument is without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)