All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the ground of appeal on the claim for liquidated damages, the lower court recognized the remaining construction period as 174 days at the time of termination of the instant contract, and recognized the liquidated damages as KRW 13,292,40,000 on the basis of the number of delayed days obtained by deducting 264 days from the number of delayed days calculated by applying the aforementioned provision, which was 720 days from the number of delayed days calculated by applying the aforementioned provision, as 456 days from the number of delayed days computed by deducting 264 days from the number of delayed

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding calculation of the completion period of liquidated damages and reduction of liquidated damages, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

B. As to the grounds of appeal on the unpaid construction cost, in general, where the contractor has to settle the construction cost due to the rescission of the construction contract without completion of the construction work, the construction cost should be calculated by applying the ratio of the existing part and the existing part of the construction cost to the construction cost calculated based on the construction cost actually required or to be required for the unused part. The completed ratio of the construction cost is the ratio of the construction cost required for the completion of the existing completed part of the total construction cost to the total construction cost.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da53457, Jan. 27, 2011). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the total construction cost under the general terms and conditions of the instant contract.