All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, it is reasonable to view that, at the time of the instant service contract, BJ/V consortium comprised of the Plaintiff and two companies, etc., and the Defendant and four companies (hereinafter “B consortium”) agreed to have the Plaintiff divide the obligations under the above service contract regarding the instant joint venture companies in proportion to their respective members of the above joint venture companies in proportion to their ratio of shares. Therefore, the Defendant determined that B consortium bears not only the obligations (including the service charge, but also the liability for penalty due to nonperformance) owed by B consortium against the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant service contract, but also the liability corresponding to the Defendant’s share ratio.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the instant service agreement, the nature of the partnership’s debt burden, and the nature of penalty, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. The lower court unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the suspension of construction of this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and the continued state of the suspension of construction of construction of this case became impossible to achieve the purpose of the instant service contract and complete construction due to the Defendant’s failure to implement the terms and conditions of the contract due to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and determined that the instant service contract was lawfully terminated due to the cause attributable to the Defendant, which falls under the cause for termination of contract under Article 25(1)1 or 3 of the General Conditions of the instant service contract

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legality of the instant notification of the suspension of construction, the requirements for rescission of a contract, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. The third ground for appeal is examined as follows.