1. The Plaintiff’s obligation under the contract for construction of liquid manure and malodor reduction facilities with respect to the Defendant.

1. The facts to be stated by this Court in this part of the underlying facts are as shown in the Grounds for Claim Nos. 1 to 9 (including paper numbers) and may be admitted in the video as a whole by considering the overall purport of the pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant entered into a contract for construction of liquid manure and malodor reduction facilities with the Defendant on May 5, 2014; and (b) the Defendant paid construction cost of KRW 89,50,000 to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant unilaterally suspended and locking the construction work on December 2, 2015; (d) the instant construction contract was terminated by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint; and (e) the Defendant did not undertake construction work even after receiving construction payment from the Plaintiff; and (e) the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the construction cost against the Defendant.

B. In a case where the judgment contractor has to settle the construction cost due to the rescission of the construction contract without completion of the construction work, barring special circumstances, such as where there is a special agreement on the calculation of the construction cost or the enhancement rate, the construction cost shall be calculated by applying the agreed total construction cost to the total construction cost, in total, the construction cost already completed part of the total construction cost and the construction cost required for the completion of the non-construction part, including the construction cost already completed.

Therefore, in order to calculate the construction cost based on the already completed construction cost or to deduct the construction cost required for the completion of the non-construction part from the agreed total construction cost, special circumstances, such as the agreement, should be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da225561 Decided November 26, 2015). In the instant case, the Health Unit and the Defendant did not complete the instant construction contract, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant construction contract by delivery of a copy of the complaint. As such, the instant construction contract was terminated.