[1] Grounds for termination of a continuous contract

[2] In a case where the Korea Electric Power Corporation established the installation location of the power transmission tower and the power transmission line and entered into a lease contract with the owner of the site, but the location of the power transmission line was inevitably changed due to the request of a nearby military unit and the area was increased by about 10%, the case holding that it is difficult to view that the trust relationship between the parties, which forms the basis of the above lease agreement, was destroyed, to the extent that it is difficult to maintain the contractual relationship as it is, in light of various circumstances, in view of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the change of the location of the power transmission line

[1] Article 543 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 543 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da17826 delivered on March 24, 1995 (Gong1995, 1718), Supreme Court Decision 2002Du5948 delivered on November 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 242)

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others (Law Firm Multiur, Attorneys Hyh Ho- Line, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Attorney Lee Jae-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Na304 decided May 28, 2010

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court. The appeal against the plaintiff 1 is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1 are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the appeal against the plaintiff 1

The Defendant did not state the specific grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal against the Plaintiff 1 as well as in the appellate brief. Therefore, the above part of the appeal is without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal against the remaining plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2, etc.”).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the instant lease agreement was concluded to the effect that the Defendant, among the 3 real estate owned by Plaintiff 2, set up a transmission tower and a transmission line on the part of the Maternal portion among the 3 real estate owned by Plaintiff 2, etc., and that, among the 3 real estate of this case, 668m2 and 98m2 among the 3 real estate of this case was scheduled to be a transmission tower, and that the 98m2 among the 3 real estate of this case was not a ship (not a ship), the Defendant not only set up the power transmission line in the direction among the 3 real estate of this case but also entered into the 1,0

However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A continuous contract is based on the trust relationship between the parties. If the trust relationship, which forms the basis of the contract, is destroyed during the existence of the contract, due to a breach of the contractual duty of one of the parties or any other wrongful act, etc. and thereby it is difficult for the other party to maintain the contractual relationship as it is, then the other party may terminate the contract relationship and terminate its validity in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da17826, Mar. 24, 1995; 2002Du5948, Nov. 26, 2002).

However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) concluded the instant lease agreement with Plaintiff 2, etc. after determining the location of the power transmission tower and the power transmission line installation; (b) subsequently, concluded the instant lease agreement with Plaintiff 2, etc., but inevitably changed the location of the power transmission line installation at the request of the neighboring military units; (c) the Defendant was immediately aware of the aforementioned facts; (d) was refused to provide additional consultation and compensation; and (e) the location of the power transmission line installation set forth in the instant lease agreement was changed and the area was increased by approximately 10% of the area originally planned; and (e) the increase in the area was merely a mere 10% of the area initially planned to be included in the site; (b) under Article 9 of the instant lease agreement, it is difficult to view that the current status of the real estate used as the height and forest of the power transmission line and the location of the Plaintiff 2, etc., which did not interfere with the Plaintiff 2’s free use of the instant real estate as above.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the grounds for termination of the lease agreement of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding plaintiffs 2, etc. is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal against plaintiffs 1 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1 are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)