(a) Legal relations at the time of cancellation of a construction contract;

(b) In cases where the parties under paragraph (a) have scheduled the costs of unconstruction, remuneration for the unbuilt buildings;

A. In the construction contract for a building project, where one of the parties has cancelled the contract due to the other party's default, if the construction has been considerably advanced and its restoration to its original state has resulted in a significant social and economic loss, and the completed part is beneficial to the contractor, the contract is invalidated only for the completed part and the contractor is liable to deliver the building to the contractor and the contractor is liable to pay the remuneration for the building delivered. In such a case, the remuneration for the unredeemed building to be paid by the contractor is based on the total construction cost agreed between the parties, barring special circumstances.

B. In the case of the above paragraph (a) above, if the parties agreed to perform the construction cost for the incomplete buildings at the time of the discontinuance of the construction work, it is reasonable to view that the remuneration for the incomplete buildings to be paid by the contractor would be the amount calculated by deducting the construction cost for the incomplete buildings scheduled from the total construction cost under the initial agreement, unless there are other special circumstances.

Article 664 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1715 (Gong1986,1377) Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990,363) 91Da42630 Decided March 31, 1992 (Gong1992,1419)

Attorney Park Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 92Na8620 delivered on April 21, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and in light of the records, such as evidence No. 2 (Evidence No. 10-1, No. 1-9, construction contract) and evidence cited by the court below, the court below's fact-finding of the court below and the plaintiff agreed to reduce the construction cost to KRW 46,924,000, including the completed portion and the unpaid portion of the construction work, which was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff until he succeeded to the status of the contractor under the contract of this case on January 21, 1991, and the construction cost paid to the plaintiff until he succeeded to the status of the contractor under the contract of this case is KRW 163,850,00,000, and it is also justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

Even if it is based on the statement of the written appraisal of gambling support pointing out the essay, the construction date of the facility of this case cannot be accurately appraised. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the construction of this case was completed before January 21, 191 only with the result of the appraisal.

In addition, the author argues No. 10 No. 2 (Written Estimate) is not a written estimate for the additional construction cost, but a written estimate for the repair cost after the completion of the construction project, but is not accepted.

There is no reason to discuss the issues of the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court.

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The fact-finding of the court below cannot be deemed to be a violation of the rules of evidence. The above facts are as follows. If one of the parties cancels a contract for construction work due to the other party's non-performance of obligation in the construction contract, the construction work has been considerably advanced and its restoration to its original state has resulted in serious social and economic losses, and the completed part is a benefit to the contractor, the contractor is obligated to deliver the building as it is terminated and the contractor shall pay the remuneration for the building delivered to the contractor. In such a case, the remuneration for the building not completed to the contractor shall be paid by the contractor based on the agreed total construction cost between the parties, unless there are special circumstances. However, the amount calculated by the contractor at the rate of the fixed construction cost at the time of the discontinuance of the construction work at the time of the discontinuance of the construction work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Da32470, Dec. 26, 198; 88Da32487, Mar. 12, 1992).

Therefore, with the same purport, the court below presumed that the contract for the construction work in this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was lawfully rescinded and invalidated only for the unsatisfed portion at the time of the discontinuance of the construction work, and held that even if the plaintiff did not complete the unsatisfy portion as agreed on January 21, 1991, or the defendant completed most of the unsatisfy portion, the defendant cannot refuse the plaintiff's claim for the construction cost as to the unsatisfy portion on the ground of such ground. However, this part of the contract is just and acceptable as the balance calculated by deducting the amount of the construction cost to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as the unsatisfy portion between the parties out of the total construction cost originally agreed upon, and there

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)