Dae Forestry Industry Co., Ltd. and 11 others (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Seo-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Kim Tae-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan-si (Law Firm Won, Attorneys Jung Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 29, 2014

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap22179 Decided August 23, 2013

1. The judgment of the court of first instance revoked the part against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which exceeds the following order of payment among the part concerning the plaintiff 2 and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the bankruptcy debtor 2 and the bankruptcy debtor 2, the bankruptcy debtor 2, the administrator of the bankruptcy debtor 2, the administrator of the bankruptcy debtor 2, and the bankruptcy debtor 2, the administrator of the bankruptcy debtor 2, who is the administrator of the bankruptcy debtor 2, and the bankruptcy debtor 3, who is the administrator of the lawsuit against the defendant 2, and all of the claims against the above plaintiffs

Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall pay 2,581,653,194 won to the bankruptcy trustee of the bankruptcy debtor 2, 33, and 6% per annum from January 1, 2013 to November 5, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, to the day of complete payment, to the bankruptcy debtor 2,581,653,194 won, which is the administrator of the bankruptcy debtor 2, who is the administrator of the bankruptcy debtor 2, who is the administrator of the bankruptcy debtor 2, who is the administrator of the bankruptcy debtor 1, who is the administrator of the bankruptcy debtor 2, who is the lawsuit of the plaintiff Daelim Industrial Corporation and the bankruptcy debtor 2,

2. All appeals against the plaintiffs in paragraph (1) of this Article and appeals against the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs in paragraph (1) and paragraph (1) and appeals against the plaintiffs in Korea are dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be borne by the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City except the plaintiffs in paragraph (1) shall be borne by the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant

1. Purport of claim

In the first place, the U.S.A.A. against the defendant, in the second place, shall be the administrator of the debtor rehabilitation obligor 2,585,320,717 won, the administrator of the debtor rehabilitation obligor 2, who is the administrator of the non-party 1's lawsuit taking over the lawsuit of the plaintiff Daelim Industry Co., Ltd., and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., the debtor rehabilitation obligor 2, the administrator of the non-party 1's lawsuit taking over the lawsuit of the non-party 2, who is the administrator of the non-party 1's lawsuit, to the plaintiff 2, 335,320,717 won, Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., the plaintiff Hyundai Heavy Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., the plaintiff Hyundai Heavy Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd., the plaintiff Hyundai Heavy Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Ltd., the plaintiff Hyundai Heavy Heavy Heavy Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., the plaintiff Hyundai Heavy Heavy Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., the plaintiff's claim payment of each of this case from 260%.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Defendant Republic of Korea shall be revoked. It is so decided as per Disposition against Defendant Republic of Korea.

B. Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be revoked. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government shall be dismissed in entirety.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that "total construction period" of the first instance court's 18th trial's 6th trial's 6th trial's 1st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 31st 8th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 2000 "the indirect construction cost calculated according to a certain ratio of the direct construction cost that had not been spent within the original construction period due to the extension of construction period," and it is reasonable to 3th 6th 1st 3th 13th 13th 3th 16th 13th 3th 13th 6th 2nd 6th 6th 31st 31st 31st 32th 2nd 701st 32th 5th 25th 3615th 206."

2. Additional parts

A. The 16th end of the judgment of the first instance

[The defendant asserts that since the main contract of a long-term continuing construction contract is a number of contracts, as long as the two contracts have been concluded at each time, their legal relations should be determined on the basis of the terms of each of the following contracts. Thus, it is impossible to independently apply for the adjustment of the contract price based on each of the following contracts. However, the general contract is an independent contract with regard to the total construction cost and construction period under the agreement between the parties, and the plaintiffs have applied for the adjustment of the contract price for the additional construction period on the ground that the total construction period has been extended, and as seen in the above basic facts, the total construction period has been extended once until the initial construction period was extended, but it seems impossible to separately apply for the extension of the construction period, not for the total construction period by each of the following contracts, even if the total construction period had been extended until the initial construction period was extended, it can be determined on the basis that the overall construction period was extended separately, as alleged by the defendant, even if the overall construction period was applied for the extension of the construction period by each of the existing construction period.

B. The 6th end of the judgment of the first instance.

(1) The defendant asserts to the effect that an agreement for extension of the construction period was reached at the request of the plaintiffs for the period extended regardless of budgetary shortage, and therefore, it cannot be subject to the contract price adjustment for that period. However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the defendant's evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant cannot be accepted)

C. The 20th end of the judgment of the first instance.

(1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the agreement not to claim indirect construction costs should be interpreted as a waiver of indirect construction costs even if the extension of the construction period of the relevant water-supply contract upon the conclusion of the overall contract, even if the extension of the construction period of the relevant water-supply contract was made. According to the evidence Nos. 275 and 277, the Plaintiffs may recognize the fact that the Plaintiffs expressed the purport that the extension of the construction period was not made, or that it would be carried out without adjustment, even if the extension of the construction period was requested for the extension of the respective water-supply contract period of the relevant water-supply contract of the Section 701 and 703, the additional indirect construction costs due to the extension of the construction period of the overall contract would not exceed the actual cost. However, according to the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiffs expressed the purport of adjusting the contract amount within the extent that the additional construction costs due to the extension of the construction period of the overall contract does not exceed the actual cost. In light of the above fact of recognition, the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted).

D. The 8th end of the judgment of the first instance.

(1) The defendant's assertion that the contract amount adjustment should be deducted from the indirect construction cost that has been made due to price fluctuation during the extended period. However, since there is no particular reason to deduct the amount adjusted due to price fluctuation unrelated to the extension of the construction period from the additional indirect construction cost that has been made due to an extension of the construction period, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted. In addition, the defendant's assertion that the amount corresponding to the price fluctuation adjustment amount for the extended period due to the plaintiffs' causes attributable to the defendant's fault should be deducted from the indirect construction cost that the Seoul Metropolitan Government should pay to the plaintiffs. However, there is no evidence to prove that the extension of the construction period has been extended due to the plaintiffs' causes for the lack of budget

E. As to the credibility of the appraisal result by Nonparty 3 of the first instance trial appraiser

With respect to credibility of appraisal results, the defendant did not calculate adequate labor costs even after calculating reasonable labor costs in the case of indirect labor costs and multiplying the unit cost of the work. ② Indirect labor costs are generated in proportion to the direct labor costs calculated according to the quantity of the construction works, and if there is no change in the quantity of the construction works, it cannot be deemed that the construction period is simply extended, and thus, indirect labor costs are not additionally incurred. Thus, it should should be excluded. ③ The contract price adjustment system due to the extension of the construction period should be aimed at preserving actual expenses for the management of the construction site by the construction company due to the interruption of the construction work. In this case, there was no suspension of the construction work, and there was no indirect expenses for the construction work even after the construction has been continued for the extended period. This is not for the extension of the construction period, but for the indirect expenses that began to be paid in proportion to the total construction cost. Thus, the defendant asserts that the indirect labor costs that were paid during the extended construction period are not considerably related to the indirect expenses that were directly related to the construction cost in question.

However, it can be a method of calculating an adequate labor cost and multiplying the unit cost for an occupation. However, it cannot be said that the credibility or rationality of the calculation result is recognized only based on such method (as can be seen as the result of fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance with respect to the appraiser Nonparty 3, the above appraiser appears to have not used the defendant's assertion method considering the problems that are difficult to calculate indirect labor cost because the unit cost for the indirect labor cost was not announced for the indirect labor cost, and that the indirect labor cost is linked to the direct labor cost is applied when the construction contract is concluded, and it cannot be directly affected by the plaintiffs' claim which additionally paid within the scope of the construction cost due to the extension of the construction period (i.e.,,, when the contract for the construction cost is concluded, it is an indirect agreement that the above indirect construction cost is not easily predicted how the indirect construction cost would be required, and thus, even if the indirect labor cost was actually paid until the construction period extension, it cannot be concluded that the above indirect labor cost is not applied to the above indirect labor cost for the extended period of the construction cost.

3. The changed part

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City has an obligation to pay 2,58,57,953 won to Plaintiffs 2, 2, and 3,581,653,194 won, Plaintiff Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., Plaintiff Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., Hanjin Development Co., Ltd., and 3,263,316,191 won, Plaintiff Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., 2, 32,475,409, and 2,5810,0000 annually from the following day to the 15th day of the performance of the obligation to pay 10% of the total annual damages from the 2,581,532,475,409, and the above 2,581,653,194, which are the administrator of Nonparty 2’s lawsuit by Nonparty 1, the administrator of the Debtor Rehabilitation Complex Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., to 3,1961.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed in entirety due to the lack of reasonable grounds. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the judgment of the court of first instance, on the ground that the part against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government which exceeds the above recognized part of the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government's appeal is revoked, since the part against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government's claims against the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government which is in excess of the above recognized part, and the remaining appeals against the plaintiffs except the above plaintiffs and the remaining appeals against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant's Republic of Korea against the defendant's defendant 1, who are the administrator of the defendant 1, who is the administrator of the defendant 2, the bankruptcy debtor wall mountain Construction Co., Ltd., the bankruptcy debtor 2, the administrator of the plaintiff 2, the bankruptcy debtor wall mountain Construction Co., Ltd. and the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government are dismissed

Judge Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)