1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the part "the facts premised on 1." among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, they accept them as they are by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. According to the above facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, king was the final settlement in failure to commence the instant construction even after the construction period stipulated in the instant subcontract has expired, and this constitutes a cause for termination of the contract as stipulated in Article 25(1)2 of the General Conditions of the instant subcontract and Article 5(1)f of the Conditions for Special Cases Concerning the Estimated Price, and thus, the instant subcontract was lawfully terminated around September 10, 2009 by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the contract. As long as the instant subcontract was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform its contractual obligation, the Defendant is obligated to pay the contract guarantee money to the Plaintiff, as stipulated in the instant contract guarantee contract, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. (1) Upon the completion of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant has the nature of the guarantee, and the contract of this case has already been extinguished due to the completion of the extinctive prescription against the Plaintiff of Taeman-Nec, the primary obligation, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation, the guaranteed obligation, also has expired in accordance with the principle of the non-existence

(2) According to the purport and contents of Articles 7 and 25 of the General Subcontract Terms of this case and Articles 1, 3 and 6 of the Contract Guarantee Terms of this case, the contract guarantee contract of this case is a subordinate to the guaranteed obligation of the United Nations (Article 1 of the Contract Terms of this case clearly states that the Defendant’s obligation is the guaranteed obligation) where the subcontract of this case is terminated due to a cause attributable to Taiwan, within the scope of the guaranteed obligation (the contract guarantee contract of this case is terminated due to a cause attributable to Taiwan).