The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion regarding termination of the contract, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s termination of the subcontract concluded between the Plaintiff was lawful on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding termination of contract or by violating

2. As to the assertion regarding the calculation of the price of the work for the work

(a) Where the contractor has to settle the construction cost due to the rescission of the construction contract without completion of the construction work, and the contractor has to settle the construction cost due to the fixed rate, barring special circumstances, such as where there are special agreements on the calculation of the construction cost or the fixed rate, the construction cost shall be calculated by applying the agreed rate of the total construction cost to the total construction cost, in total of the construction cost already completed and the construction cost required for the completion of the non-construction portion.

Therefore, in order to calculate the construction cost based on the already completed construction cost or to deduct the construction cost required for the completion of the non-construction part from the agreed total construction cost, special circumstances, such as the agreement, should be recognized.

(Supreme Court Decisions 94Da29300, 29317 Decided June 9, 1995; 2000Da4095 Decided February 26, 2003; 2012Da39769, 3976 Decided May 24, 2013; 2015Da22561 Decided November 26, 2015, etc.) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da22561, Nov. 26, 2015).

The court below held that ① the construction cost to be incurred in completing the unconstruction portion appraised by the appraiser U and S in the first instance trial is unclear in the grounds for the calculation method, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the said construction cost. ② The above appraiser convenience facilities installed by the Plaintiff.