2016Da273147 Construction Price

1. A stock company;

2. B (B before Change: J)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Attorney Kim Jong-hun, Justice Kim Jong-hun, Justice Lee Jae-hun, Justice Lee Jae-chul, Justice Lee Jae-young, Justice Lee Jae-hee,

Suh Dong-ho, Song-ho, Lee Ho-ho, Lee Dong-ho

Gangwon-do

Law Firm Multi-Hunting, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Realization-Mo, Park Jae-chul, Jin-dong

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2030085 Decided November 18, 2016

December 12, 2018, 28

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A long-term continuing construction contract under Article 21 of the former Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (amended by Act No. 11377, Mar. 21, 2012) and Article 69(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to which the State is a Party shall be concluded with a separate contract concerning the total construction cost and total construction period, and shall not be in the form of entering into a separate contract for each business year, but rather in the form of an additional statement of total construction cost and total construction period when entering into a primary construction contract for each business year. The term “general contract” refers to an ordinary agreement on the total construction cost and total construction period stated in the first construction contract at the time of entering into the contract for the first construction project. Such general contract is not in itself a conclusive agreement on the total construction cost and total construction period, but rather linked with the conclusion of each annual contract. In other words, the general contract shall be deemed as having a position of a contracting party to enter into an annual contract based on the total amount of construction cost and total construction period of construction period. Therefore, the contract shall be deemed as effective.

2. Nevertheless, under the premise that the total construction period is legally binding during the total construction period stipulated in the overall contract, the lower court may adjust the total construction period as to the extended total construction period, as it requires adjustment of the contract amount, separate from extension of each construction period by number of vehicles. Considering that the total construction period in the instant case was extended for 29 months, the lower court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim to increase the indirect construction cost

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the relationship between the general contract and the annual contract and the validity of the total construction period stipulated in the general contract, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the Defendant’s remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Jong-il

Justices Park Il-san

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant