The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A long-term continuing construction contract under Article 24(1) of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Local Contracts Act”) and Article 78(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which a Local Government Is a Party (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Local Contracts Act”) is not in the form of concluding a separate contract on the total construction cost and total construction period, but in the form of entering into a separate contract on the total construction cost and total construction period for each business year, and is not in the form of entering into a first-year contract

The term “general contract” refers to an agreement on the total construction cost and total construction period additionally stated at the time of signing the contract on the primary construction work. Such general contract is not based on the conclusive agreement on the total construction cost and total construction period, but rather on the conclusion of each annual contract.

In other words, as a standard for the temporary utilization of the overall scale of business, construction amount, construction period, etc., the overall contract should be regarded as an agreement on the fact that the contracting party is in the position of entering into each of the following contracts (annual contracts) and the total scale of the contract should be based on the overall contract.

Therefore, the validity of a comprehensive contract is limited to a determination by a contracting party, determination of intent to perform a contract, contract price, etc., and the details of performance by a contracting party, the scope of performance of a contract to a contracting party, the period for execution of a contract, etc., shall be determined specifically through a multiple contracts (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da235189, Oct. 30, 2018; Supreme Court Decision 2017Da201699, Nov. 29, 2018). The Plaintiff has a legal binding force for the total construction period stipulated in the instant comprehensive contract, and the total construction period extended accordingly.