(a) Whether the occupancy contract is valid in case where the right to cancel the contract has been reserved to the Foundation for an occupancy contract between the Industrial Complex Management Corporation and the occupant enterprise, with the right to cancel the contract under Article 15 (1) 1 of the Industrial Complex Management Act (affirmative); and

B. In a case where the amount of damages is predetermined, whether the obligee can claim the amount of damages calculated against the debtor without proving the amount of damages (affirmative)

A. Termination of a contract under Article 15 (1) 1 of the Industrial Complex Management Act is a case where an enterprise which acquired an industrial site fails to commence the construction of a factory and other facilities within a fixed period without any justifiable reason, the right to unilaterally terminate the occupancy contract to the Foundation in terms of efficient use of the industrial complex, and it cannot be deemed that the Foundation has prohibited itself from reserving the right to cancel the contract at the time of selling the factory site as a private economic entity. Thus, the above occupancy contract between the Foundation which reserved the right to cancel the contract and the occupant enterprise shall not be deemed null and void.

B. Where the amount of damages has been estimated between the obligee and the obligor due to nonperformance, the obligee is not required to prove the occurrence of damages and the amount of damages, and the obligee is entitled to demand the obligor to pay the estimated amount of damages on the sole basis of the non-performance of obligation, unless there are circumstances to reduce the estimated

(a) Article 543 of the Civil Act; Article 398 (a) of the Industrial Complex Management Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3101 Decided May 10, 198 (Gong1988, 951)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Changwon Machinery Industrial Corporation (Attorney Yoon Jae-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 89Na3458 delivered on August 23, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the termination of the contract under Article 15 (1) 1 of the Industrial Complex Management Act is a right to unilaterally terminate the occupancy contract to the Foundation in terms of efficient use of industrial complex where the occupant enterprise who acquired the industrial site fails to commence the construction of a factory and other facilities within the fixed period without any justifiable reason, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant, as the management corporation, reserved the right to cancel the contract in itself at the time of selling the factory site as a private economic entity, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above occupancy contract between the defendant is null and void. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the Industrial Complex Management Act. We are without merit.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In the event that the amount of damages is scheduled between the obligee and the obligor due to the nonperformance, it is not necessary to prove the occurrence of damages and the amount of damages, and the obligee is entitled to demand the obligor to pay the estimated amount of damages only due to the default, unless there is any circumstance to reduce the estimated amount of damages because of the excessive amount of damages.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)