1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff’s assertion

A. In a long-term continuing contract, the total construction period under the general contract should also be deemed legally binding. As the total construction period under the general contract is extended to 2,165 days, the instant construction project additionally spent indirect construction cost of KRW 5,136,086,814, and KRW 2,312,628,980 for the Plaintiff’s subcontractor, and KRW 2,312,628,980 for the Plaintiff’s subcontractor. Although the Plaintiff requested adjustment of the construction amount based on the extension of the total construction period, the Defendant did not comply with the request. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff an indirect construction cost of KRW 7,453,97,384 (= KRW 5,136,086,814) and delay damages therefrom.

B. Even if there is no legal binding force in the total construction period under the preliminary domestic overall contract, at least 412 days have been extended, and the Defendant did not comply with the request of the Plaintiff for adjustment of the construction amount based on extension of the construction period. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 1,323,382,52,526 (= KRW 907,627,083,083, 415,75,443) and delay damages for the remainder of the construction period extended from the total construction period to the 1,420 days, which has not been completed from the expiration of the extinctive prescription period to the 1,753 days, and the 1,420 days have been extended without any legal cause, which is equivalent to or has been obtained from the economic benefits necessary for the field maintenance and management or the 415,755,443 won, and the Defendant falls under the Plaintiff’s losses or losses from the Plaintiff’s contractual management or damages from the Plaintiff.