1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that the part of “3... judgment” of the first instance judgment is identical to the part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the case’s dismissal as set forth in the following 2.2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination:

A. (1) The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant notified the termination of the instant construction contract on August 31, 2012 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation (violation of contract or refusal of performance) and the Plaintiff rather than the Plaintiff’s notification of termination constitutes an obvious refusal of performance by the contractor, and thus, the instant construction contract was terminated by the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint on the ground that the Defendant’s termination notification constitutes an obvious refusal of performance by the contractor. The key issue is whether the Defendant had justifiable grounds for termination at the time of termination of the instant construction contract to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2012.

Therefore, first of all, we examine whether the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that “the Plaintiff would not reuse the boiler because it has a serious defect in guaranteeing performance when reuse of the boiler of this case” constitutes either a breach of the instant construction contract or a refusal of performance.

(2) (A) In cases where an obligor clearly expresses his/her intent not to perform a contract, the obligee may rescind the contract or claim damages against the obligor for reasons of non-performance refusal, or for reasons of non-performance, even before the due date under the principle of good faith, and whether the obligor clearly expresses his/her intent not to perform the contract should be determined by comprehensively examining the party’s behavior and the specific circumstances before and after the contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da53173 delivered on August 19, 2005, etc.). We turn on the instant case.