(a)the case holding that, upon the cancellation of a contract after the completion of the difficult-to-date waste treatment plant construction works, the effect of the cancellation shall be limited to the machinery, electrical construction works and shall not affect the civil engineering and construction works;

(b) The case holding that a contract concluded between the Republic of Korea and a construction company is for a third party whose beneficiary is the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Construction Contract;

C. Whether or not the beneficiary's right to cancel the contract or the beneficiary's right to cancel the contract in the contract for the third party

(d) Whether a beneficiary has a right to claim damages where a contract for a third party is rescinded;

(e)the contractor's duty in the construction contract under the Turn-Key Base method;

(a) The case holding that when the contract is terminated after the completion of the construction work of the difficult-to-date garbage treatment plant, if the contract is cancelled, it will cause excessive loss to the contractor, as well as social and economic loss if the contract is cancelled as a result of the cancellation, and it will also bring about social and economic loss if the contract is restored to the original state as a result of the cancellation, the effect of the contract cancellation is limited only to the machinery and electrical construction, and it does not extend to the part which is the origin of civil and construction work.

(b) The case holding that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is not a party to the contract for the construction of the waste disposal site on the ground that the Republic of Korea has concluded a contract for the construction work with the construction company for the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the construction of the waste disposal facility is the Republic of Korea and the construction company under the above contract and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is the beneficiary, and that the construction of the waste disposal facility is a project in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, except for the formulation of the basic plan, the selection and provision of the site, the preparation of the tender guide, the disbursement of the construction cost, and the disbursement of the management expenses

(c) No beneficiary who is not a party to a contract for a third party may be deemed to have a claim for recovery made by reason of the right of rescission or cancellation of the contract.

(d) In the contract for a third party, the beneficiary who has expressed his/her intent of profit can directly claim the performance of the contract to the weak person, and in cases where the summary has cancelled the contract, the contractor shall be liable to compensate for the loss he/she has suffered from the defect of the completed object.

E. The construction work contract between the Republic of Korea and a construction company is based on the so-called design and package deal (Turn-Ky Ba), and even if the Republic of Korea, which is a contractor, determined the basic matters of the whole construction work, such as the location, size, the frame of the treatment process and the minimum function of the treatment facilities, etc., and presented the necessary administrative approval concerning the construction execution drawing, the construction company, which is the contractor in a package deal contract for design and construction, should, after understanding the purpose of the establishment of the object of the construction to be desired by the contractor, perform the construction work by itself and guarantee its performance, thereby achieving the desired purpose of the construction work by the contractor.

Articles 68, 539, 543, 548, 551, and 664 of the Civil Act

A.E. Supreme Court Decision 92Da41542 delivered on Aug. 12, 1994 (Dong-dong). Supreme Court Decision 88Da4819 delivered on Feb. 14, 1989 (Gong1989,422), Supreme Court Decision 91Da42630 delivered on Mar. 31, 1992 (Gong1992,1419), Supreme Court Decision 92Da30160 delivered on Dec. 22, 1992 (Gong193Sang,567), Supreme Court Decision 93Da25080 delivered on Nov. 23, 1993 (Gong194,179)

Korea

Kimk Law Firm et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. and one other Defendants, Kim Dong-dong Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-ap et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na46573 delivered on August 13, 1992

Of the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the part concerning the claim for damages due to the payment of expenses for the maintenance of the comprehensive waste treatment business office shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded

The remaining appeals by the plaintiff in Seoul Special Metropolitan City and all appeals by the plaintiff Republic of Korea and the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against each party.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney

A. On the first ground for appeal

If the facts are as legally determined by the court below, in this case, the cancellation of a contract is limited to the machinery and electrical construction as stated in the judgment of the court below, and it does not cover the key part of civil and construction works, in light of the purport of the proviso of Article 668 of the Civil Act or the good faith principle, since the contract cancellation in this case is limited to the machinery and electrical construction as stated in the judgment, and it does not cover the key part of the civil and construction works. Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is inappropriate, the conclusion of the court below which did not recognize the cancellation of a contract with respect to the key part of civil and construction works as stated in the judgment of the court below is just, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

B. On the second and third grounds for appeal

(1) According to the records, the judgment of the court below on the cost of the removal of the waste disposal facilities of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no reason to discuss the decision of the court below on the ground that there is no error as to the theory of lawsuit.

(2) If the facts are duly determined by the court below, the parties to the contract for the construction of the garbage treatment plant of this case entered into between the plaintiff's Republic of Korea (the plaintiff's country is the plaintiff's country and the defendant's Hyundai Construction for the plaintiff's Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the plaintiff's country is the plaintiff's subsequent construction) and the plaintiff's city is the plaintiff's country and the defendant's Hyundai Construction, and the plaintiff's city is the beneficiary under the above contract is just and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the Public Procurement Fund Act or Article 539 of the Civil Act. The construction of the above waste treatment plant of this case is a project of the plaintiff's city and all of the contracts except for the conclusion of the contract, such as the formulation and provision of the basic plan, the selection and provision of the site, the preparation of a tender guide, the disbursement of construction expenses, management expenses, etc., were actually conducted at the time of the plaintiff's city and the completed facilities belong to the plaintiff'

(3) As seen above, if the market price of the Plaintiff is not the party to the construction contract of the garbage treatment plant of this case, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to claim restitution based on the rescission or rescission of the above contract. Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.

(4) According to the records, since there is no evidence to prove the fact that the country of the plaintiff country paid the human and material facility maintenance expenses of the general waste treatment business office, the claim for damages due to the above maintenance expenses against the defendants of the plaintiff country is groundless. Although the court below different reasons, the conclusion that the plaintiff country rejected the claim for damages due to the above maintenance expenses of the plaintiff country is justified, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

(5) However, according to the records, the plaintiff city at the construction site of this case established a comprehensive waste treatment business office of this case and disbursed 1,302,862,170 won as the expenses for the maintenance of its human resources and physical facilities, and caused damages to the defendant as above due to the defect of the completed object, and thus, it can be deemed that the contractor has the warranty liability, and the beneficiary who has expressed his/her intent of profit in the contract for a third party can directly claim for the performance of the warranty liability, and if the summary cancels cancels the contract, he/she can claim compensation for the damages suffered by the abortion, so if the plaintiff suffered damages as alleged by the defect of the completed object, the defendant Hyundai Construction, the contractor, shall be liable to compensate for such damages.

Nevertheless, the court below did not deliberate and decide on the above argument at the time of the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of judgment, and it is clear that such illegality affected the conclusion of judgment, and therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

2. Judgment on the defendants' grounds of appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff's market price was commissioned to the Korea Advanced Institute after compiling evidences. The Korea Advanced Institute determines that the method of recovery and recycling of waste is the most appropriate from among various methods of disposal of waste as a result of the investigation and research conducted by the Korea Advanced Institute, rather than the detailed construction plan for the efficient construction for the construction of a waste disposal site, such as the investigation of the site for the disposal site and the examination of appropriate disposal methods according to the quantity and quality of waste discharged. However, it is reasonable to follow the so-called design and construction contract for the construction work as it requires highly technical expertise. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted a report to the plaintiff that it is reasonable to follow the so-called design and construction contract for the construction work as part of the terms of the contract at the time of the construction project at issue, and therefore, it is not clear that the contractor conducted construction work at the time of the execution of the construction project at the time of the construction project at issue and the construction plan for the construction project at the time of the execution of the construction project at issue.

B. On the second ground for appeal

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the contents of the contract on the waste treatment facilities of this case were to be installed with waste disposal equipment, waste transfer equipment, revolving body, wind or solid fuel screening equipment, solid fuel type equipment, compressor, recovered article, and compostized substance as human resources by collecting, collecting, and inserting waste from 1,500 tons per day, which is part of the waste generated at the time of the plaintiff as human resources. In light of the relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below is justified in its determination as above, and it is not justified in the conclusion of the contract of this case as the contents of the contract of this case, and the construction of waste treatment facilities under the Resource Separation and Recycling Act, as buildings are constructed with incombustible non-combustibilityable non-refluoring, and the construction of treatment plant, management building, etc. are installed as the internal facilities of the factory.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) carried out the first time operation of machinery by inserting waste from April 1986 to June 19 of the same year; (b) carried out the first time operation of each process; (c) did not properly set waste treatment materials, such as dust dust; (b) discharged waste of the same kind as combustible materials, which were not properly set up; (b) completed the construction of additional construction; (c) carried out the second time operation of the elevator by inserting waste collected from each area at the time of the Plaintiff’s time to June 7, 198; and (d) carried out the second time operation of new waste treatment facilities on the premise that the removal of waste from the first time to the date of the first time operation; and (d) determined that the removal of waste from the first time to June 22, 1988 to the date of the first time to the date of the installation of new waste treatment facilities, and that the removal of waste from the first time to the first time to the date of the installation of new waste treatment facilities from 1 to the end of new 20.

According to relevant evidence and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the mistake of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, or the lack of reason, or the misapprehension of the legal principles. All the arguments

3. Therefore, among the part against the plaintiff in the judgment below against the plaintiff, the part concerning the claim for damages due to the expenses of maintenance and management of the general waste treatment business office shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The appeal against the remaining part of the plaintiff time and the appeal by the plaintiff country and the defendants shall be dismissed in entirety without any reasonable ground. The costs of appeal against the dismissed part shall be borne by the losing party, so decided as per Disposition

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)