All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A are assessed against each other.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4 of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”), the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the instant development project, which constructed a complex combining commercial and convenience facilities in the instant land located within the general commercial area of the new city, was not commenced within one year from the approval date of land use due to the Plaintiff’s fault attributable to the instant consortium, including Defendant A, and that its execution itself was impossible. Thus, the lower court lawfully terminated upon the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on June 9, 2015.

Furthermore, the second stage project was not implemented due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff.

notice of the cancellation of the instant case does not mention the grounds for termination under section 21(1)4 and 7 of the Project Convention.

Defendant A’s assertion that it does not constitute a ground for termination is rejected.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the above judgment below did not err in misapprehending the legal principles regarding specific grounds for termination, interpretation of disposal documents, impossibility of performance and refusal of performance, which are grounds for termination of contract, or erroneous determination of facts beyond the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant A, the lower court rejected the Defendant A’s assertion on this part, on the ground that it is difficult to view that Defendant A had lawfully exercised its right to substitute for a voluntary obligation only as a performance bond for the agreement previously submitted, on the grounds that Defendant A did not take any measures to extend the period of a contract performance guarantee even though the project period was extended according to the amendment of the project plan

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the legal relationship with a voluntary obligation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.