2014Provisional 569801 Construction Price

1. S.C.;

2. A gold industry stock company;

3. The construction of Korean Commercialization;

4. Tae Young Construction Co., Ltd.;

5. The construction of tin Co., Ltd.;

Korea

June 28, 2016

August 11, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff HoS Construction Co., Ltd. 351,621,60 won, the amount of 158,229,720 won, each of the 158,229,720 won to the plaintiff Tae Young Construction Co., Ltd., the amount of 52,743,240 won and each of the above amounts of 6% per annum from December 30, 2013 to August 11, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 85% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 15% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 2,183,918,866 won to the plaintiff S. S. Construction Co., Ltd., the plaintiff Geum-ho Industry Co., Ltd., Hancheon Construction Co., Ltd., the 982,763,489 won each, and 327,587,830 won each, and 6% per annum from December 30, 2013 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Conclusion of a contract for construction works;

1) The Defendant, through the Public Procurement Service, publicly announced that the construction works for the construction of the 2-1 construction of the government office building in Sejong City (hereinafter “instant construction works”) will be bided in the form of a package bid (design and construction date) under the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party. The Plaintiffs organized a joint supply and demand system in order to jointly supply the instant construction works, and the representative contractor of the joint supply and demand company was designated as the Plaintiff Branch Construction Co., Ltd., and participated in the said bidding and was selected as a successful bidder. The Plaintiffs’ share ratio is 40% of Plaintiff Ho SS Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., 40% of the Plaintiffs, 18% of the construction works for the Plaintiff Hanh City Co., Ltd., Ltd., 18% of the Plaintiff

2) On November 18, 201, the Plaintiffs concluded a contract for construction works with the Defendant, the contract amount of KRW 10,00,000,00 for the total construction period, KRW 178,795,100,00 for the total construction period, and KRW 178,795,10,000 for the total construction period, and KRW 178,795,10,00 for the commencement date, November 18, 2011 for the commencement date, February 10, 2012; the total completion date of construction works; and KRW 66,986,260,587 for the contract amount on February 13, 201; KRW 178,795,00 for the total construction period; KRW 130,00 for the construction works; KRW 136,00 for the construction works on March 30, 2013; and KRW 130,016.7.136.

B. The plaintiffs' request for increase in construction price

On November 5, 2013, when requesting the Defendant to modify the design of the instant construction project, the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to increase the contract amount of KRW 12,409,740,000 in accordance with the Defendant’s instructions. The Defendant recognized only the increase of KRW 3,042,00,00 on November 15, 2013. While the Plaintiffs raised an objection regarding the change of the design, the Defendant requested the increase of the construction cost in accordance with the order of the ordering authority among the reasons for the request for the increase of the Plaintiffs, the instant contract is deemed to have been reflected in the design by considering the purpose of the construction project, the scope of the construction project provided in the tender guide document, and the standards for the design and construction. However, since the Plaintiffs did not properly reflect some of the contents presented in the tender proposal in the design, it is unreasonable to consider the matters requiring correction and change of the construction cost in the entire construction site, not in the construction site design document.

C. The contents related to the instant case among the tender guide, contract for construction, special conditions, and general conditions of contract for construction incorporated into the contents of the instant contract, such as the contents of the relevant contract are as follows.

[Attachment 1.4. Compliance and Obligations. The other party to the contract shall meet the requirements prescribed in the tender guide and contract document in the process of basic design, working design, delivery and repair of construction and repair of defects, and shall meet the requirements required in the tender guide and contract document, regardless of the time required by the agency awarding the contract. On January 7, 198, the other party to the contract, etc. shall reflect to the maximum extent possible the opinion presented by the agency awarding the contract in the process of design and construction. In this case, construction cost shall not be increased or decreased unless the other party to the contract submits the opinion in the process of design and construction. If it is found that the design document is different from the requirements of this guide after the contract, it shall be supplemented and revised at the cost of the party to the contract and shall be constructed after obtaining the approval of the agency awarding the contract.This construction work shall be implemented on a package deal basis, taking into account the fact that the contract price adjustment is impossible, considering the relevant plan review, possibility of occurrence of civil petitions, etc., and the cost for each additional facility or management of each project.

It shall be borne (excluding cases falling under paragraph (3) of Article 21 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract).In the event that the object of the construction project is found to have been completed differently from the requirements prescribed in this tender guide and contract documents even during or after the completion of the construction project, and the ordering agency instructs the supplementation thereof, the contractor shall be responsible for the expenses of the other party.[Special Conditions of the Construction Contract] Articles 20 (Liability for Design), 20 (Liability for Design), 20 (Liability for Design), the other party to the contract shall implement the request for supplementation because there is any defect, omission, inconsistency, etc. in the design document, or in light of the contents of the basic design document or the basic design document, or because the other party to the contract is not clear, even if the other party to the contract has received the determination of the eligibility as a result of the design deliberation, the other party to the contract shall not be exempted from the liability for the design document, if the other party to the contract has been negligent in the construction project or the design document prescribed in paragraphs (1) through (2).

(1) In cases of design changes, the contract amount shall not be increased even in cases where the contract amount is changed due to the reasons prescribed in Article 21 (5) of the General Conditions and due to the reasons prescribed in any of the following subparagraphs: Provided, That cases falling under paragraph (6) of the same Article shall be excluded in cases where the reasons prescribed in the subparagraphs of Article 20 (4) exist:

6. In a case where a geological survey was impossible due to the opposition of the owner of a building, the retention of obstacles, the denial of authorization or permission of the relevant agency, etc.; 7. In a case where a party to a contract does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (3) or any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (4) and where a design is modified due to a state of site and a difference in design, etc., the contract amount shall be adjusted by adding up the amount to be increased or decreased for the whole construction, but the contract amount shall not be increased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 4-1, 2, 5 through 12 of evidence 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for the increase of the contract amount according to the request for design change by the ordering authority

(a) Requirements to recognize the contract price increase;

1) In general, the method of design and construction package deal (Turn-Ky Bse) means: (a) a bidder who has secured sufficient data through a bid guide and site site consultation, etc. circulated in advance by the ordering person; (b) a bidder who has submitted all basic plans and other drawings and documents necessary for the construction at the time of bidding in accordance with the basic plan and guidelines for the construction package deal (a) proposed by the ordering person; and (c) a bidder who has been notified as an eligible person for the execution design submitted the execution design; and (d) a bidder who finally selected the successful bidder of the relevant construction through an examination thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da1650, Aug. 23, 1996). In a case where a contract for construction work is concluded on the basis of the aforementioned method of design and package deal deal tender, the contract amount can not be increased except in cases where the contract amount is modified after the amendment due to a cause or a natural disaster, etc., attributable to the ordering person (Article 91(1) of the Act on Contracts).

Furthermore, in full view of the details of the tender guide, the construction contract conditions, and the general conditions of the construction contract as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs are obligated to perform the required construction cost, if they receive the Defendant’s request for supplementation because the details of the tender guide are incomplete or unclear even after the completion of deliberation on eligibility of the working design and the execution design of this case became final and conclusive, in light of the contents of the tender guide even after the conclusion of the instant contract, and the relevant expenses are also borne by the Plaintiffs. Even if there are no deficiencies or deficiencies in light of the details of the tender guide, the Defendant’s opinion may be reflected to the maximum extent possible

2) However, according to the above contract contents, the reasons or force majeure of the defendant who is the ordering agency, i.e., the change of the project plan under the general conditions of the contract, i.e., ① where the ordering agency is required to change the project plan, ② where the ordering agency, etc. makes a request other than the ordering agency related to the project in question and accepts it: ③ where the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes (including standard specifications, specifications, design standards, and guidelines) are amended and amended; in the case of civil petitions arising after construction as prescribed by the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes; where the underground obstacles drawings and field conditions issued by the five ordering agency or the construction-related agency are different or where the construction site conditions are newly laid underground after the contract, or where it is impossible to conduct a geological survey due to the difference between the underground obstacles drawings and site conditions issued by the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes or the new obstacles laid underground after the contract, the price may be increased.

B. Determination by individual additional construction

1) Construction cost of KRW 658,308,00 due to the addition of ventilation windows

A) Although the plaintiffs designed a ventilation space area that meets the standards of relevant laws and regulations and received the determination of eligibility in the shop design approval, the plaintiffs design modification was made by adding a ventilation room at the defendant's request. Such modification was made due to the necessity of an ordering agency, such as modification of the project plan under the general conditions of the construction contract, or due to a civil petition filed in accordance with the construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes, or due to a force majeure, etc., which does not belong to any party's liability, and thus, the costs associated with the above design modification should be borne by the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the costs associated with the design modification should be borne by the plaintiffs since the design of the plaintiffs

B) In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16, the plaintiffs planned the creative area cost to be 3.79% and the ventilation area cost to be 8.30% and completed the deliberation of eligibility for working plans. Such design satisfies the requirements prescribed in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. On April 17, 2013, the defendant demanded the plaintiffs to change the opening area to 2,200 square meters at the beginning 1,140 square meters by reflecting the demands for the installation of ventilation windows after moving the government office building at the first stage prior to the stage of the government office building. The defendant requested the plaintiffs on April 17, 2013 to change the opening area from the beginning 1,140 square meters to the original 658,308,000 square meters. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the change of eligibility for working plans was caused by force majeure or force majeure causes as claimed by the plaintiffs.

Rather, the following facts and circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16, namely, the bid guide of the contract of this case, shall be installed to a level sufficiently open to the extent that the air ventilation can be achieved smoothly in connection with the ventilation window, [this case's bid guide of this case shall be installed [this case's bid guide of this case's bid shall be 3], and the air conditioning equipment shall be designed to ensure sufficient natural ventilation even during the hours of the non-working of the tender design guide of this case's 4th 2.6.6.6.6.6.6.). Considering the circumstances of the government office building of this case which has already been occupied after the completion of construction and that there is an opinion pointing out the lack of ventilation in the building, etc., the plaintiffs should have to install the tender guide of this case's bid area to the extent that it could not meet the tender guide of this case's.

C) The plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

2) Additional construction cost of KRW 1,056,344,00 due to the change in the management of the OA other date

A) The Plaintiffs asserts that the change of the price of the OA T to 3T from 3T is based on the request of the ordering authority to standardize the completed quality of the building of government office building, and that the costs associated with the change of the above design should be borne by the Defendant, since the change of the project plan under the general conditions of the construction contract is caused by the necessity of the ordering authority, such as the change of the project plan, or if it does not belong to any liability of any contracting party, such as force majeure, etc. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to bear the costs associated with the change of the design. Accordingly, the difference between the basic design specification and the design specification submitted by the Plaintiff is stipulated in the design specification, etc., and the difference between the design specification and the design specification is made to be constructed with the thickness of 5T according to the tender specification that the difference between the design specification

B) According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 17 and 18, the original basic design description is written as 3T in all the specifications for the basic design; the design design document also contains 600 x 600 x 3T; the design document is written as 500 x 500 x 505 m only in the Antils; the defendant's construction work document is written as 334,140,000 to 1,390,407,000, and it is reasonable to recognize that the design document No. 1300 x 505T of the floor, such as the office building, is written as 50 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 x 300 x 130 x 100 x 17,00 x 17,00 x 17,01.

C) This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3) Additional construction cost of KRW 984,684,00 due to a change in the temperature and temperature room

가) 원고들은 입찰안내서에는 항온항습실에 대한 별도의 내용이 없었기 떄문에 입찰안내서 설계지침 2. 14. 라)의 저장시설(자료실, 문서고, 창고, 도서실 등)에 관한 내용을 기준으로 해당 사용부서에 인접하여 사용이 편리하도록 설계하였고, 이에 따라 실시설계에 대한 적격 심사를 마쳤는데 계약 체결 이후 정부조직법 개편 등으로 2단계 1구역으로 이전하는 기관의 공간배정이 변경됨에 따라 수요기관이 사무공간 확장 및 사무실 배치 변경, 항온항습 중앙공조 공급방식 검토 등을 요청하였고, 이에 피고가 2013. 6. 21. 업무지시를 통해 재배치를 요구함에 따라 설계변경이 이루어져 추가 비용이 발생하였는데, 이는 공사계약 일반조건에서 정한 사업계획변경 등 발주기관의 필요에 의한 경우이거나 불가항력 등 계약당사자 누구의 책임에도 속하지 않는 경우에 해당하므로, 위 설계변경에 따른 비용은 피고가 부담하여야 한다고 주장한다. 이에 대하여 피고는 항온항습설비가 설치된 자료실 등은 본래 입찰안내서에서 통합배치를 원칙으로 하고 내부 각 자료관은 기관별로 관리할 수 있게 구분하여야 한다고 규정하고 있음에도 원고들이 자료실, 문서고 등을 분산배치하는 것으로 설계하였으므로 이는 입찰 안내서에서 정한 요구조건에 충족되지 않았거나 요구조건과 상이하게 작성된 것이어서 피고의 책임 있는 사유 내지 불가항력에 의한 것이 아니라고 주장한다.

B) The Plaintiffs were designed to allocate storage facilities such as the data room to the relevant use department to complete the examination of qualifications for working plans. On June 2013, the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, the Ministry of Health and Welfare, and the Ministry of Employment and Labor presented their opinions on the request for reflection of the facilities such as ion-resistant and damping facilities. Accordingly, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiffs to jointly place storage facilities on June 21, 2013. The Plaintiffs changed their design in accordance with the Defendant’s work order and accordingly caused KRW 984,684,00 for additional construction costs, or there is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiffs changed their design in accordance with the Defendant’s work order, or that there was an additional construction cost of KRW 13,20 through 23, and evidence Nos. 39 (if numbered, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of each of the above statements and arguments presented by the Defendant. However, considering the following reasons, the Plaintiffs’ request for the consolidation of documents Nos. 10 through 239, the entire tender guidelines, the following reasons can be acknowledged.

Rather, in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendant’s request for design modification for the integrated placement of storage facilities, etc. after the deliberation on eligibility for the shop design seems to have made the Plaintiffs’ request for modification because the design of the Plaintiffs is inconsistent with the contents of the tender guide, etc., and accordingly, the costs incurred in the reorganization of storage facilities, etc. should

C) This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4) Additional design costs of KRW 322,795,00 due to any change, etc. in the open vacant area

A) The Plaintiffs, at the Defendant’s direction, proposed design changes for the addition of restaurants to the Ministry of Labor, the addition of offices, toilets, the addition of external parking lots, the addition of air-conditioning rooms to change the landscaping public place, authorization of district unit planning, and deliberation on the change of traffic impact assessment. However, the Defendant recognized only the expenses related to approval of district unit planning, and did not recognize the remainder of expenses due to the change of traffic impact assessment. The Defendant asserted that the aforementioned expenses should be borne by the Defendant on the ground that the cost of design services, etc. was incurred due to the design outline, specifications, invoices, general drawings, and detailed drawings, etc. due to each of the above changes requested by the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the aforementioned expenses should be borne by the Defendant on the ground that the cost of design services, such as design outline, specifications, general drawings, and detailed drawings, were included in the scope of the Plaintiffs’ work, and thus, cannot be claimed for the payment of additional design expenses. If the Plaintiffs need to submit separate design service expenses, the Plaintiffs failed to obtain approval from the ordering Party prior to the completion of the scheduled design construction project.

B) Where a contracting officer intends to modify a contract due to the necessity of the project owner, he/she may request the other party to the contract to prepare and submit the amended drawings and detailed drawings of the relevant work progress. Accordingly, where the other party to the contract submits the revised drawings and detailed drawings of the construction work, he/she shall pay the expenses incurred in the modification to the other party to the contract pursuant to Article 23 (Article 19-7(2) and (3), Articles 19-5 of the General Conditions of the contract for construction work, and where it is necessary to adjust the contract amount due to changes in the terms of the contract, such as construction period, transportation distance, etc., in addition to cases under Articles 20 and 22 of the General Conditions of the contract for construction work, he/she shall adjust the contract within the extent not exceeding the actual expenses (Article 23(1) of the General Conditions of the contract for construction work, but the public official in charge of the contract shall also apply the terms and conditions of the contract to the contract before the amendment is made through consultation with the other party to the contract (Article 23).

In light of the above contents of the contract, in order for the plaintiffs to seek the payment of expenses for the change of design, the change of design must be based on the reasons attributable to the defendant, the revised drawings and the normal and detailed drawings shall be prepared and submitted at the defendant's request, and the contract amount shall be adjusted before commencing the implementation of the change of design. However, unless there is any evidence to prove that the plaintiffs prepared and submitted the revised drawings and the normal and detailed drawings at the defendant's request, the above assertion

5) Additional construction cost of KRW 390,000,000 due to a change in a parking lot or open vacant lot

A) At the time of the first design modification, the Plaintiffs asserted that, instead of increasing the construction cost of KRW 390,00,000 increased due to the cause such as the extension of office building security guards at the time of the first design modification, the Defendant changed the design to the effect that there is no increase or decrease in the total construction cost by deleting part of the landscaping construction work and reducing the same amount. In the process of the second design modification, the Defendant calculated the increase in the construction cost due to the second design modification by stating the construction cost before the second design modification as the amount before the first design modification, which was less than KRW 390,00,000,000, which was omitted to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that, at the time of the second design modification, entry of the construction cost before the second design modification into the amount which was not reflected in the details of the first design modification is erroneous in writing, and that it is not necessary to additionally calculate the construction cost since the final landscaping construction cost after the second modification was appropriately calculated according to the actual construction cost reported.

B) Although the initial landscape construction cost of the instant contract was KRW 5,682,51,00 (except for indirect costs 4,211,348,000), the amount was reduced to KRW 5,290,645,00 (except for indirect costs 3,901,795,000) as a result of the second design modification. The amount increased to KRW 5,714,656,00 (except for indirect expenses 4,242,519,000) as a result of the second design modification, the Defendant did not enter the amount of KRW 5,290,645,00 after the first design modification, and stated KRW 15,60,505,50,500 as a whole, KRW 16,506,505,50,500, KRW 165,505,000 as a result of the first design modification.

However, inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the final landscaped construction cost was 5,714,656,000, the plaintiffs did not receive part of the landscaped construction cost due to the defendant's error in calculating the amount of increase or decrease, it should be recognized that the defendant was not 5,714,656,000 won due to the ground that the defendant paid the full amount of the landscaped construction cost calculated in the second design and paid only the increased or decreased amount calculated in the second design, etc., after the defendant paid the full amount of the cost incurred in the first design, and that the defendant did not pay part of the landscaped construction cost to the plaintiffs merely because there is an error in calculating the increased or decreased amount at the time of preparing the details of design change.

6) Electrical construction expenses due to changes in a parking lot and additional construction expenses due to changes in the office of labor in the Ministry of Labor;

A) Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiffs additionally implemented landscaping, civil engineering, and electrical construction while creating a parking lot additional construction and landscaping section. Landscape, despite the increase in the construction cost for civil engineering works, there was no increase in the construction cost, and the Defendant is obligated to pay each of the above amounts on the ground that there was no increase in the fire-fighting and electrical construction portion due to a change in the actual condition of the Ministry of Labor, but there was no increase in the fire-fighting and electrical construction portion. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that there was no obligation to pay the additional construction cost because it was omitted in the settlement statement for the final change of the contract, or

B) In order for the counter-party to the contract to adjust the contract amount upon the request of the agency awarding the contract, each statement in the evidence Nos. 21(9), 20(9), and 26, and 27 of the contract amount shall be insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs filed a claim for the adjustment of the contract amount before the payment for completion is received, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit without need to further examine it.

7) Additional construction costs due to an error in settlement of the fourth insurance accounts

A) The Plaintiffs requested the settlement of four types of insurance policies for the number of employees other than those belonging to the Plaintiffs as stipulated in the subject of indirect labor cost settlement. However, the Defendant did not recognize the insurance premium for all employees belonging to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant asserts that since the technical employees in charge of regular on-site and work units other than the subject of indirect labor cost are ordinary workers, the Defendant should pay the insurance premium. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the subject of settlement as claimed by the Plaintiffs did not constitute an object of settlement, such as the insurance premium, since it was not verified that the subject of settlement was either a person subject to direct labor cost or a person in charge of construction management submitted at the time of commencement.

B) According to Article 40-2 of the General Conditions for the Construction Contract incorporated into the terms of the instant contract, a public official in charge of contracts shall settle the amount of national health insurance premiums and national pension premiums pursuant to Article 93 of the Standards for the Enforcement of Government Contracts Act with respect to contracts to pay national health insurance premiums and national pension premiums ex post pursuant to Article 93 of the Framework Act on the Execution of Government Contracts under Articles 39 and 40, as prescribed by Article 94 of the Standards for the Enforcement of Government Contracts at the time of payment of prices under Article 40. Under Article 94 (3) of the Standards for the Enforcement of Government Contracts for Public Tender Contracts, a public official in charge of contracts shall settle the amount of national health insurance premiums for business operators, long-term care premiums for older persons, and a written confirmation of payment of national pension premiums for older persons under paragraphs (1) through (2) of the same Article. A public official in charge of contracts shall settle the amount of payment written in the relevant workplace unit, and a daily worker (limited to those subject to direct labor expenses) shall be determined separately from the relevant workplace unit.

Therefore, in order for the plaintiffs to receive the settlement of insurance premiums, etc. for the persons subject to settlement of accounts, they must prove the date actually invested in the relevant workplace by the documents confirmed by the ordering agency or supervision such as the field list as commercial workers who are subject to direct labor cost. However, each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 28, 29, 54, and 55 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The above assertion

3. Determination as to the claim for the reduced construction cost

A. Determination as to the claim on the construction of a facility for excellent treatment at the initial stage, waste transfer, and construction of a new section E/J

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

In the event that the construction cost is increased or decreased due to reasons attributable to the plaintiffs who are parties to the contract during the execution of the instant construction project, the contract amount shall be adjusted by adding up the amount to be increased or decreased for the entire construction project, but the contract amount shall not be increased (Article 21(7) of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract). Therefore, the defendant shall not reduce the construction cost by adding up the amount to be increased or decreased for the reasons attributable to the plaintiffs, 217,358,00 won due to the failure to perform the public trial reduced due to reasons attributable to the plaintiffs (Article 21(7) of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, 58,000 won due to the failure to perform the public trial, 58,000 won due to the failure to perform the initial treatment, and 472,813,000 won due to the failure to perform the initial construction, E/J construction costs due to the change in the new construction section, and thus, the defendant shall not reduce the construction cost unfairly by adding up the reduced construction cost to 000 won.

2) The defendant's assertion

Under Article 21(7) of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract Act, the contract amount shall be adjusted by adding up the amount to be increased or decreased for the whole construction work to be limited to the case of changing the design due to the field conditions and the difference between the design. Each of the plaintiffs' arguments is that the contents indicated in the design drawing were not constructed or modified due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiffs, and it does not constitute the case of changing the design due to the difference between the site conditions and the design.

3) Determination

A) Under Article 91 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party and Article 21 of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, the adjustment of the contract amount in the instant contract shall be governed by the provisions of Article 21 of the Construction Contract Act. Article 21(1) through (5) of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract provides for the adjustment of the contract amount in cases where the working plans are changed due to reasons not attributable to the person eligible for facilities prior to the conclusion of the contract, or where the contract amount is not applicable due to reasons attributable to the authority awarding the contract after the conclusion of the contract, or due to force majeure or reasons not attributable to the authority awarding the contract. Thus, it is reasonable to view that Article 21(7) of the same Act provides for the method of adjustment of the contract amount in cases where the contract amount is not applicable to cases where the reasons attributable to the ordering person or force majeure, such as the modification of the contract amount due to reasons attributable to the reasons attributable to the authority awarding the contract, namely, the difference between the construction site and the construction site, and the reasons attributable to the above reasons for the contract.

B) The modification of the design following the non-construction and the modified construction claimed by the Plaintiffs is an excessive design for the function of cost reduction, or there is no dispute as to the fact that the contract amount reduced due to the reasons attributable to the Plaintiffs is for cost reduction. Thus, the contract amount reduced due to each of the above modifications shall be adjusted by adding up the amount to be increased and decreased for the whole construction work pursuant to Article 21(7) of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract Act, and the contract amount shall not be increased. According to the evidence No. 5-4, it can be acknowledged that the increase in the contract amount due to the reasons attributable to the Plaintiffs is a cause of 2,660,317,000. The above amount does not exceed 879,054,000 won in total due to the non-construction and the modified construction, and thus, the contract amount shall not be reduced if added. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is reasonable.

B. Determination as to claims related to the change of the exhaust pipe material quality, the connection hub FCU pipes, and system gambling telecommunications system

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The detailed statement of calculation in the design and construction-related comprehensive contract is a description of the volume, size, unit, unit, unit price, etc. constituting the bid amount or the contract amount, and does not correspond to the design documents. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the contract amount cannot be adjusted on the grounds that the design documents (including specifications) and the calculation sheet are different, the defendant unfairly reduced the contract amount, and the defendant is obliged to pay the reduced amount. Furthermore, even if the design documents (including specifications) are based on the grounds that the plaintiffs are responsible for the change of the design, the defendant shall pay the reduced amount. Furthermore, even if the contract amount is calculated on the grounds that the contract amount is increased or decreased for the whole works pursuant to Article 21(7)

2) Determination

As alleged by the plaintiffs, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract amount has been reduced due to the difference between the design and the calculation sheet concerning each of the above details or the defendant's difference between the design and the calculation sheet.

Furthermore, as the above changes are based on the reasons attributable to the plaintiffs' liability, it is difficult to view that the contract price adjustment according to each of the above changes should be made in accordance with Article 21 (7) of the General Conditions of the Construction Contract, unless there is any evidence to acknowledge the reasons for the change of the rights asserted by the plaintiffs, and otherwise, unless there is any evidence to prove that each of the above changes is due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff's liability, the contract price adjustment according to the above changes shall not be made in accordance with the above general conditions

C. Sub-committee

The defendant is obligated to pay 879,054,00 won for the construction payment which has been unfairly reduced to the plaintiffs. Thus, according to the share ratio of the plaintiffs recognized above, 351,621,60 won (x40%) to plaintiff HoS Construction Co., Ltd., 351,621,60 won ( = 879,054,000 won), 158,229,720 won ( = 879,054,000 x 18%), 52,743,240 won ( = 879,054,000 won x 6%) and 52,743,240 won for the payment of delay payment from the date of completion of the construction in this case to the date of completion of the construction in this case, it is reasonable to determine that the defendant's duty to pay 15% of the total amount from December 30, 2013 to the date of completion of the construction in this case.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Park Jong-soo

Judges Hwang Sung-sung

Judges and Public Officials;