[1] Whether a supervisor performing responsible supervision bears a duty of care to prevent damage to a contracting authority after examining technical problems in design documents before execution (affirmative), and the standard for determining whether a contracting authority breached a duty of care

[2] In a case where Party A, who ordered construction of excreta and food and waste disposal facilities, sought damages from Party B, who entered into a responsible supervision agreement that does not operate food and waste disposal facilities normally due to design errors, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in determining that Party B neglected to supervise design errors, even though it is difficult to readily conclude that Party B could have specifically pointed out design errors

[3] The relationship between the damages liability due to the nonperformance of contractual obligations under the design service contract and the damages liability due to the nonperformance of contractual obligations under the construction contract (=unjoint and several liability)

[1] According to Article 27(4) of the former Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Act No. 9848, Dec. 29, 2009; hereinafter the same), Article 52(1)14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22525, Dec. 13, 2010); Article 34(1)4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 315, Dec. 20, 2010), a “examination of design documents” includes a “examination of design documents,” and Article 23-2(2) of the former Construction Technology Management Act provides that a supervisor shall review the design documents prepared and submitted by a construction-supervising firm prior to executing the construction work in question and report the results thereof to the contracting authority which ordered the construction work. In light of such provisions, the supervisor and the contracting authority’s duty of care should be examined to determine whether there is a problem of design supervision prior to do so.

[2] In a case where Gap local government ordered construction of excreta and food and garbage treatment facilities against Eul corporation, which concluded a responsible supervision contract that does not operate food and garbage treatment facilities normally due to design errors, sought compensation for damages due to neglect of supervision of design errors, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which held that Eul corporation neglected to supervise design errors, in light of the situation at the time when there was no precedent of installation of joint handling facilities such as the aforementioned excreta and food and garbage treatment facilities, and the general level of technology and experience of supervisor, it is difficult to conclude that Eul corporation could have discovered that the core process and know-how were omitted, and that it could have specified design errors in detail.

[3] The damages liability due to the nonperformance of a design service contract and the damages liability due to the nonperformance of a contract for construction works are independent of each other arising from a separate cause or obligations with the same economic purpose, and the overlapping part is a so-called in which the other party’s obligations are extinguished if one party’s obligations are extinguished due to repayment, etc.

[1] Article 390 of the Civil Act, Article 23-2(2) of the former Construction Technology Management Act (Amended by Act No. 9848, Dec. 29, 2009; see Article 48(2) and (3) of the current Construction Technology Promotion Act), Article 27(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act (see Article 39(6) of the current Construction Technology Promotion Act); Article 52(1)14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22525, Dec. 13, 2010; see Article 59(3)15 of the current Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Promotion Act); Article 34(1)4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Construction Technology Management Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 315, Dec. 20, 201; see Article 34(1)6 of the current Enforcement Rule of the Construction Technology Management Act) 290 of the former Construction Technology Management Act

[3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19378 decided Jan. 27, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 329)

Gwangju-si (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Lee Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Co., Ltd. and four others (Attorneys Lee Ho-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korean Comprehensive Technology Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na35666 decided August 22, 2012

Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment against the Defendant Co., Ltd. against the Defendant Co., Ltd. is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Plaintiff’s final appeal against the Defendant Co., Ltd. against the Defendant Co., Ltd. is dismissed. The Plaintiff’s final appeal against the Defendant Co., Ltd. is all dismissed. The costs of the final appeal against the Plaintiff’s Korea Co., Ltd. against the Defendant Co., Ltd. are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the costs of the final appeal due to the Plaintiff’

1. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A. As to the ground of appeal on the establishment of liability for damages

1) The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and the grounds of appeal as to the design error of the Defendant-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant-dong”) in relation to the Defendant-Appellant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant-dong”).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that: (a) omission of the design of a long-term storage tank, pressure injury tank, etc. in order to satisfy the target balance of the separation from the food waste disposal facility of this case by neglecting the verification procedure while taking charge of design of food waste and the joint disposal method of excreta, which has no cases in Korea; and (b) omission of the design of a complete disposal facility of this case, such as a long-term storage tank, pressure injury tank, etc., in order to satisfy the target balance of the separation from the food waste disposal facility of this case, constitutes a ground for the Defendant designer’

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the part of the judgment below which was somewhat inappropriate for the defendant designer's explanation that the defendant designer should have to keep food waste for a long time prior to the separation process on October 13, 2005, based on the contents of the defendant designer's response as to the plaintiff, but the conclusion of the judgment below that the defendant designer failed to perform his duty under the design service contract of this case by omitting some of the design of this case by neglecting the verification process. Thus, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Ground of appeal No. 3 by Defendant New Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Comprehensive Construction”) and Defendant Filicy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Filicy”)

The appraiser’s appraisal result shall be respected unless the appraisal method is against the rule of experience or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da70420, 70437, Feb. 22, 2007; 2010Da93790, Nov. 29, 2012).

The court below accepted the appraisal result of the non-party in the judgment below, and accepted the non-party's appraisal result and found that the non-party's new comprehensive construction and efficacy (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's contractor") was manufactured to be suitable for driving at a level of 1,600-2,00G level, which is not suitable for high speed driving of more than 2,500G level, and that the non-party's designer's separation of construction stated in the design documents is DS/LCC type, and the non-party's separation of construction actually constructed against the defendant's designer's design documents is DCR/CBS type, and DCR type is less than DCR type with a rapid decline in the separation efficiency in the case of low rainfall type, and lower the high weight recovery rate compared to LCC type or DS type in the process ability, and CBS type has lowered the recovery rate of the product.

In light of the records, such measures of the court below are just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3) Defendant East Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant East Engineering”)’s ground of appeal No. 1

A) According to Article 27(4) of the former Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Act No. 9848, Dec. 29, 2009; hereinafter the same), Article 52(1)14 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22525, Dec. 13, 2010); Article 34(1)4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Construction Technology Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 315, Dec. 20, 2010), a “examination of design documents” includes a “examination of design documents,” and Article 23-2(2) of the former Construction Technology Management Act provides that a construction-supervising firm should examine the design documents prepared and submitted by a service provider prior to executing the construction work in question and report the result thereof to the contracting authority which ordered the construction work. In light of such provisions, the supervisor and the contracting authority’s duty of care should be examined to determine whether there is a problem of design supervision prior to perform the construction work.

B) In the case of responsible supervision, the court below pointed out the lack of capacity of storage tanks and the supplementation of biological pre-treatment process in accordance with the characteristics of food garbage, and determined on January 26, 2006 that, inasmuch as the supervision contract of this case also imposes the duty to examine the design documents on the defendant Dong Engineering, if the design error to the extent that could have been discovered if the design drawing was checked, it cannot be exempted from liability for damages if the design error was neglected. Meanwhile, the supervisor's duty to examine the design should be judged from the general level of experience and technology required in the position of the person engaged in the supervision, and that it is unreasonable to impose the duty to examine the design of new public law at the level of developer. In light of the above, the court below determined on the ground that a large number of experts in the related field pointed out the lack of capacity of storage tanks and biological pre-treatment process in accordance with the characteristics of food garbage, and that the defendant Dong Engineering neglected to the plaintiff on January 26, 2006, in view of the fact that it installed additional response, converation and supplementary equipment and injury treatment facilities in the design of the design.

C) However, the lower court’s determination that Defendant East Engineering neglected to supervise design errors is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, ① there was no case of designing the instant excreta treatment facilities and food waste treatment facilities in Korea as at the time the working design report on the instant excreta treatment facilities and the instant food waste treatment facilities were prepared and no case was established. ② The construction method applied to the instant excreta treatment facilities and food waste treatment facilities is the construction method in which dlimbs (hereinafter “dlimbs”) hold patent rights. Dlimbs offered Defendant designer with a proposal for business of food waste treatment facilities and offered Defendant designer with confidential concern about leakage of public law and future dlimbs to avoid being entrusted with subcontracted construction of the instant excreta treatment facilities and food waste treatment facilities, ② Defendant designer prepared a working design report on the instant food waste treatment facilities by using such incomplete proposal, ③ The construction method applied to the instant excreta treatment facilities and food waste treatment facilities is not only the construction method in which patent owners possess patent rights, but also the construction method of the instant food waste treatment facilities should also be combined with the examination of new waste treatment facilities and the construction method of the relevant alternative food waste treatment facilities.

In full view of such circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the normal operation of the food waste disposal facilities of this case was based on the production of design documents without knowing the core process of the construction method and know-how in the business proposal presented by the dlimbio in the Defendant designer rather than on the issues of the construction method itself with the patent right. Therefore, in light of the situation at the time when there was no example where the facilities for combining human excreta and food waste such as excreta disposal facilities and food waste disposal facilities were installed, and the general supervisor’s technological level and experience, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant East Engineering’s core process and know-how were omitted after examining the design documents of the Defendant designer prepared in accordance with the new construction method of dlimbios, and that the design errors were pointed out in detail.

D) Nevertheless, the lower court determined that Defendant East Engineering neglected supervisory duties over design errors on its grounds as stated in its holding. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of the duty to review design documents, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4) Defendant East Engineering’s ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 4

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision, and found the following facts. Although Defendant East Engineering granted conditional approval on the approved document of separation-equition period with the content that it will alter the specifications of the separation-equition period and reduce the capacity of the separation-equition period submitted from the Defendant contractor, it approved the approved document of separation-equition period of the Defendant contractor, which had been arbitrarily modified at will, as it did not inquire or confirm the supplementary measures of the Defendant contractor, and then did not follow the examination procedure, etc. accordingly, approved the approved document of separation-equition period of the Defendant contractor, which had been arbitrarily modified at will, and as a result of the Defendant contractor’s comprehensive trial operation, it could be found that the Plaintiff was negligent in neglecting the supervision duty in the relevant construction and construction procedures, such as submitting the inspection document of completion to the Plaintiff, even though it was aware that the normal operation of the food waste disposal facilities of this case was impossible due to the scheduled completion period and the comprehensive operation of the Defendant contractor.

In light of the records, the part of the judgment of the court below that held that the act of Defendant East Engineering’s neglecting the duty of supervision in the execution process of the instant case’s act of neglecting the duty of supervision in the normal operation of the food waste disposal facilities by approving the approved document of separate recovery period without rectifying voluntary change construction by Defendant East Engineering Co., Ltd. among the judgment of the court below is justifiable, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

However, it is difficult to accept the part, as it is, that the neglect of supervision in the completion process caused the impossibility of normal operation of the food waste disposal facilities of this case.

As acknowledged by the court below, if the violation of the duty of supervision by Defendant East Engineering related to the performance of the respective nonperformances and voluntary change of construction by Defendant East Engineering relating to the voluntary change of construction by Defendant East Engineering, has already been in an impossible state of the normal operation of the instant food waste disposal facilities, even if there was a violation of the duty of care to submit the final inspection of completion of the Defendant East Engineering’s act of submitting the instant food waste disposal facilities, such act cannot be deemed as having a causal link with

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the violation of supervision duty in the completion procedure caused the impossibility of normal operation of the food waste treatment facilities of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causation. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

5) Part of Defendant East Engineering’s ground of appeal No. 3

The lower court determined that the food waste disposal facilities of this case could have achieved the target material balance, such as the rate of recovery of secondary substances, which is the design value, if necessary, by expanding the capacity of a storage tank corresponding to the design error part and supplementing the facilities, such as pressure, injury, concentration, etc., but even if the equipment due to the voluntary alteration and supplementation of the equipment due to the design error due to the voluntary alteration and construction of the separate storage machine by the Defendant contractor, it was difficult for the instant food waste disposal facilities to reach the target material balance, and thus, such voluntary alteration and construction also became a factor for the normal impossibility of operation of the food waste disposal facilities of this case.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the alteration of the appearance of a separate spunching machine and the causation with the impossibility of operating the food waste disposal facilities of this case, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal

B. As to the ground of appeal on the scope of liability

1) Part of the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Defendant Conbane, and the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Defendant City Corporation

The liability for damages due to the nonperformance of the obligation under the design service contract and the liability for damages due to the nonperformance of the obligation under the construction contract are independent obligations arising out of different causes or obligations with the same economic purpose, which overlap with each other, the so-called joint and several liability extinguished if one of the other’s obligations is extinguished due to repayment, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19378, Jan. 27, 2006). As such, the Defendant designer and the Defendant contractor jointly and severally assume the independent liability for damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the nonperformance of their respective obligations as joint and several contractors, while the Defendant designer’s liability for damages due to the nonperformance of the obligation and the liability for damages arising from the Defendant contractor’s nonperformance of the obligation are in a joint and several liability relationship with each other as to the same economic purpose

Therefore, the lower court should have deliberated and confirmed the damages in proximate causal relation with the nonperformance of the instant design service contract and the damages arising from proximate causal relation with the nonperformance of the instant construction contract, and further examined whether there exists the same economic purpose among the damages liability of the Defendant designer and the Defendant contractor as the damages liability for each of the respective damages incurred by the Defendant contractor and the Defendant contractor, and should have recognized the non-joint and several liability of the Defendant designer and the Defendant contractor.

Nevertheless, without examining the above points, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant designer and the Defendant contractor’s liability for the entire damages incurred by the Plaintiff on the ground that each of the Defendant designer and the Defendant contractor’s liability for damages was an obligation with the same economic purpose as the normal operation of the food waste disposal facilities of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on vicarious and several liability, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The remaining grounds of appeal No. 2 as to the proximate causal relation between the Defendant and the Defendant’s Contact’s remaining grounds of appeal

A) The lower court held that the amount of ordinary damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the impossibility of normal operation of the instant food waste treatment facilities was the cost of replacing the cost of installing or supplementing the omitted waste treatment facilities, and the cost of installing or supplementing the separate waste treatment facilities, while on the other hand, in order to replace the separate waste treatment facilities, since considerable parts of the existing food waste treatment facilities are subject to removal, the existing design and supervision cost for the relevant removal facilities shall also be deemed as unclaimed land. In addition, on the premise that the aforementioned additional, complementary, and replacement would be expected to be additionally required for new design, construction, and supervision cost incurred by the Plaintiff under the design service contract and the responsible supervision contract, and the total construction cost actually spent within the scope recognized by evidence, and the total construction cost incurred by the Defendant designer as damages caused by nonperformance.

However, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

First of all, the cost required to replace the separate amount of loss is due to the voluntary change execution by the defendant contractor, and there is no proximate causal relation with the non-performance by the defendant designer, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant designer is included in the scope of loss that the defendant designer should compensate.

Then, the cost of addition or supplementation of an omitted disposal facility is a damage in lieu of a subsequent completion of the cost required for the subsequent completion of the design, and the cost required for the supplementary construction may be claimed as extended damage, including the supervision cost required when supervision is required for the supplementary construction. However, the court below should have deliberated on these costs in detail and calculated the cost required for the addition or supplementation of the omitted disposal facility.

Nevertheless, without examining the above points, the court below calculated the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant designer's default. This part of the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of damages, which led to the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

B) The lower court: (a) presumed that the Plaintiff’s loss caused by the consignment disposal of food waste is limited to the cost of the consignment disposal for the period required for the supplementation of the food waste disposal facilities of this case and the additional construction; and (b) premised on such cost as the ordinary loss caused by the normal impossibility of operation of the food waste disposal facilities of this case; and (c) calculated the specific amount of loss calculated by deducting the operating cost of the instant food waste disposal facilities from the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the private disposal business entity as the cost of the consignment disposal.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is just in finding the amount equivalent to the cost of entrusted disposal of food waste of this case during the period required for supplementation of food waste disposal facilities of this case and additional construction, etc. as ordinary damages caused by normal operation of the food waste disposal facilities of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to

However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of damages for the measure of deducting operating expenses when the food waste treatment facilities of this case are operated normally as a combined method as originally designed, not operating expenses when the food waste treatment facilities of this case are operated normally as a combined method, but operating expenses when they are re- operated as a reduction facility.

3) The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 and 5 of the Defendant East Engineering Co., Ltd.’s remaining grounds of appeal

The lower court also acknowledged that ① the total amount of the design service cost and the responsible supervision service cost incurred by the Plaintiff under the instant design service contract and the instant responsible supervision contract, and the total amount of the construction cost actually spent on the instant food waste disposal facility construction within the scope acknowledged by evidence, ② the amount of damages equivalent to the entrustment disposal cost incurred during the period required for the supplementation of the instant food waste disposal facility and additional construction, etc., which was paid by the Plaintiff to the private disposal business operator, deducted the operating cost for the instant food waste disposal facility in the event that the Plaintiff re-converts the instant food waste disposal facility to the reduction facility by supplementing the instant food waste disposal facility and re-convert it to the reduction

However, it is difficult to accept such judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

First of all, the expenses incurred in addition or supplementation of the omitted pre-treatment facilities are due to the nonperformance by the Defendant designer, and there is no proximate causal relation between the Defendant contractor and the Defendant East Engineering’s nonperformance, and thus, the scope of damages in proximate causal relation with the nonperformance of the obligation between the Defendant contractor and the Defendant East Engineering shall not be deemed to be included in the scope of damages to be compensated by the said Defendants. The scope of damages in proximate causal relation with the nonperformance of the obligation between the Defendant contractor and the Defendant East Engineering shall be the amount equivalent to the cost incurred in the replacement of the separate amount of loss and the cost incurred in the entrustment of food waste disposal for the period required for replacement. Next, the lower court should have calculated the amount of damages equivalent to the cost incurred in the entrustment of food waste disposal if

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, calculated the amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the nonperformance of each obligation between the Defendant and the Defendant East Engineering. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the scope of damages and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal

4) The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant food waste treatment facilities can be combined with the instant excreta treatment facilities by meeting the target balance, which is the initial design objective value, in the event of expanding the capacity of a retention tank, adding electric treatment facilities, such as pressure and injury tanks, concentration tanks, and replacing the separate storage equipment according to the design drawings and specifications of the Defendant designer.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and this part of the ground of appeal is erroneous on the premise different from the above judgment of the court below, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

5) The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 3

In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the Defendants’ fault in design, construction and supervision of the food waste disposal facilities of this case and the destruction of the margin, since the destruction of the margin is deemed the cause of the Plaintiff’s fault, which failed to properly undergo verification procedures on the performance of the margin compressionr and the processing efficiency thereof.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the meaning and scope of the cost of repairing defects in the margin margin, violation of the rules of evidence, or mistake

6) The Plaintiff’s Korea Comprehensive Technology Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Comprehensive Technology”)’s ground of appeal No. 4

In light of the records, the court below's limitation of Defendant Korea's comprehensive technology liability ratio to 70% is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, taking into account the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to limitation of liability, violation of the rules of evidence

7) The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal No. 4 against the remaining Defendants other than Defendant Korea Comprehensive Technology

As seen earlier, the determination of damages by the court below is unlawful, and the remaining amount of damages shall be re-calculated by each defendant, and the matters to be considered in the limitation of liability or the limitation of liability may vary depending on the calculation of damages by the remaining defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's ground of appeal on the limitation of

C. The part on the application for the return of the provisional payment of the Defendant’s contact with the Defendant

The application for restoration of provisional execution under Article 215(2) of the Civil Procedure Act is a kind of lawsuit in the process of a lawsuit, which is a condition for rescission that does not change the judgment on the merits. As seen above, inasmuch as the part of the judgment of the court below on the merits is reversed, the above application part of the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da40668, Feb. 25, 2005, etc.).

2. We examine the plaintiff and the defendant's application for taking over the proceedings.

According to the records, on January 9, 2014, when the appellate brief was not timely filed, it could be known that there was a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for Defendant Dong-ho on January 9, 2014. However, when the litigation procedures of the court of final appeal are declared without holding any pleadings, it is not necessary to have the custodian under the same title, a rehabilitation debtor corporation, and the defendant corporation take over the litigation procedures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da6349, Jul. 11, 2013). Therefore, the request to resume the proceedings

3. Conclusion

Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant's joint venture, club, new comprehensive construction, efficacy, and Dong engineering shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The plaintiff's appeal as to the plaintiff's comprehensive technology of Korea and the request for continuation of proceedings by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the plaintiff's comprehensive technology of Korea shall be borne by the losing party, and the costs of appeal as to the plaintiff's request for continuation of proceedings shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)