Where construction has been extended or suspended due to the circumstances of the construction contractor, the case holding that the construction contractor should pay supervision fees to the supervisor according to the ratio of the number of supervision days until the date of suspension of supervision, not by the ratio of total progress of construction.

The case holding that, although Article 34-9 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act provides that "the settlement of supervision costs following the replacement of a supervisor shall be based on the construction process", this provision is only a provision in preparation for the problem of settlement of supervision costs if a supervisor is replaced due to the reasons of the supervisor's side, not a provision that can be applied where the construction period is extended due to the reasons of the contractor, not the circumstances of the supervisor, and where the construction work is interrupted, and in such a case, "construction supervision shall be paid quarterly, and the project operator shall pay it to the supervisor by October of the following month, every quarter, regardless of the fairness rate of the construction work," and that "the fairness rate is below the standard fairness rate due to the provisions of Article 22-7 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and the circumstances of the constructor, the construction operator shall pay all the supervision costs agreed upon to the supervisor and the supervisor shall be paid by the supervisor according to the

Article 33-6 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 34-9 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 22-7 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of

Korea Forest Engineering Engineering Certified Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Housing Business Mutual Aid Association (Law Firm continental, Attorneys Kim Tae-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 180,706,521 won with an annual interest rate of 6% from October 1, 1998 to November 10, 1998, and with an annual interest rate of 25% from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-1, 2, 3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-1, 4-1, 5, 1, 6-1, 6-2, 6-1, and 6-2, and the whole purport of the testimony and arguments. There are no other counter-proofs.

A. The plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of supervising architectural design, and the defendant ("the defendant's association") is a corporation with the main purpose of financing, purchasing materials for housing business, and guaranteeing business necessary for its members for its members, who are building business operators.

B. The non-party 1,360 apartment units (hereinafter referred to as the "the non-party 1") established a new construction supervision agreement with the plaintiff on February 3, 1996 with respect to the construction supervision of the non-party 1,360 apartment units (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment units of this case") located in Dobong-dong, Seocheon-dong (hereinafter referred to as the "the apartment units of this case"), which is a member of the defendant association, entered into a construction supervision service agreement with the plaintiff on March 29, 1996 to October 1, 1997 with the amount of supervision service contract as KRW 1,30,000,000,000 for the guarantee of the above supervision service amount to be borne by the plaintiff under the above contract, and the plaintiff did not pay the warranty amount to the non-party 1,300,000,0000,030,0000,000,000,000 won from March 19, 1996.

C. After that, the non-party company changed the design of the construction to extend 20 households to the apartment of this case, extended the supervision period following the extension of the construction period on December 10, 1996, and entered into a contract for the change of construction supervision service between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff during the supervision period from February 1, 1996 to February 28, 1998. Under the above change contract, the non-party company entered into a contract for the change of construction supervision service with the Defendant union for a deposit of KRW 160 million on January 11, 1997, and the amount of supervision service contract amount of KRW 1,480,000,000,000, the guarantee period from January 11, 1997 to February 28, 1998.

D. The non-party company delayed the construction of this case due to the financial difficulties of the non-party company 1, 3, 1998. The plaintiff acknowledged the land trust of this case between the plaintiff and the non-party company as joint project undertakers on February 1, 1998. On the other hand, the construction of this case was Do on February 28, 1998, but it did not complete the construction of this case. The non-party company paid 1,480,000,000 won to the plaintiff on March 10, 1998. The period of the construction of this case was 0.3,000,000,000 won for 80,000,000 won for each quarter from March 10, 1998 to June 30, 1999, the total amount of the construction supervision fees was 80,000,000 won for 80,000 won for each quarter after the conclusion of the construction contract.

E. On June 10, 1998, pursuant to the above supervision service modification agreement, the Plaintiff received from the non-party company a letter of promissory note with the name of Korea-U.S. bank at the time of supervision for three months from March 1, 1998 to May 31, 1998, at KRW 65,00,000 and the face value of the non-party company’s issuance, KRW 100,000,000, and the due date, September 30, 1998; and one promissory note with the name of Korea-U.S. bank at the place of payment.

F. However, on July 14, 1998, the non-party company filed a default on the payment of the bill issued by the financial institution and delivered the bill to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant union notified the Plaintiff as of July 16, 1998 that it will not be liable to guarantee supervision expenses after the above date. Accordingly, the plaintiff suspended supervision over the construction of this case.

2. Determination:

According to the above facts, the defendant union is obligated to pay KRW 100,000,000,000, which is the sum of supervision fees to be paid by the non-party company from March 1, 1998 to May 31, 1998 under the above supervision fees deposit guarantee contract with the non-party company, and KRW 80,706,521, which is the amount equivalent to supervision fees for the number of days during which the plaintiff suspended supervision from June 1, 1998 to July 15, 1998 (165,00,000,000 x 45/92, and less than KRW 180,706,521, which is the sum of supervision fees to be paid by the non-party company from June 1, 1998 to August 31, 198.

As to this, the Defendant Union asserts that the supervision fees are paid according to the progress ratio of construction pursuant to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and the construction of this case did not proceed more than 32% of the total progress. The Plaintiff asserts to the purport that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unjust since the supervision fees already paid by the Nonparty Company exceed the above progress ratio in view of the total amount of supervision fees already paid by the Nonparty Company.

Therefore, Article 34-9 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act provides that "The settlement of supervision costs following the replacement of supervisors shall be based on the construction process." However, this is only a provision that is prepared for the settlement issues of supervision costs in the event that the supervisor is replaced due to the reasons attributable to the supervisor. Thus, this does not apply to the extension of construction hours due to the circumstances of the supervisor, not under the circumstances of the supervisor, and the suspension of construction work. Rather, Article 22-7 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act provides that "the construction supervision shall be paid quarterly, and the project owner shall pay it to the supervisor by the 10th day of the following month." In addition, according to each of the above evidence adopted above, the plaintiff and the non-party company agreed that the non-party company shall pay all of the supervision costs to the plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the final contract for the change of supervision services, regardless of the reasons why the plaintiff and the non-party company continued to use the construction period within the scheduled time period due to the shortage of funds of the non-party company.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as the plaintiff seeks, the defendant is interpreted to the effect that the non-party company's payment of KRW 180,706,521 as a deposit for supervision expenses and its payment is extended from the date following the date of payment of the bill issued and delivered by the non-party company to the plaintiff on September 30, 1998 (the plaintiff's delivery of a promissory note made from the non-party company on September 30, 1998 for the payment of supervision expenses from March 1, 1998 to May 31 of the same year shall be made at the rate of the annual interest rate from the date following the original due date of payment to the date of payment of the above bill, and as seen above, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of supervision expenses from June 10, 1998 to the date of termination of the bill shall be made at the rate of 15 percent of the annual interest rate from the date following the date of payment to the date of expiration 15, 1998.

Judges Song Young-young (Presiding Judge)