Whether the contractor may seek the prohibition of the contractor’s obstruction of construction work or the prohibition of the contractor’s construction work against the contractor (negative)

Even if the contractor denies the status of the contractor by asserting that the contract for construction works was rescinded without a legitimate ground for cancellation, the contractor cannot be granted an exclusive status to the contractor to seek the prohibition of the contractor’s interference with construction works or the prohibition of the contractor’s construction works. Moreover, it is difficult to view that there is a need to preserve the contractor’s remedy due to the breach of contract will ultimately lead to the issue of compensation for damages.

Article 714 of the Civil Procedure Act

Daegu Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Honam General Law Office, Attorney Kim Sung-ro, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

School Foundation and one other (Attorney Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court Order 98Kahap1388 dated September 25, 1998

1. The petitioner's appeal is dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the applicant.

The respondent shall not construct a new construction of a middle school teacher for a woman in the middle school (hereinafter referred to as the “new construction of this case”) on the ground of the 295th of the Seoul High School in the North Chang-Eup, North, and the third party shall not cause the new construction of this case. The respondent shall not interfere with the applicant’s new construction of this case.

On December 27, 1996, the purport of the instant application is that the applicant entered into a contract for the instant new construction project with the head of the Gowon branch of the school foundation of the Respondent under the educational foundation of the Respondent under the contract for construction cost of KRW 1,586,950,00 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) and the applicant was fully prepared to execute the instant new construction project. The head of the said Gowon middle school unilaterally notified the applicant of the cancellation of the instant contract on June 17, 1998 on the ground that the applicant cannot carry out the construction project under the direction of re-design for the above teachers from the Office of Education of the Jeollabuk-do, and notified the applicant of the cancellation of the instant contract on June 17, 1998, on the ground that the applicant could not carry out the new construction project. Accordingly, the applicant could not recover from the unlawful act of the Respondent (the Respondent, the Respondent at the present middle school foundation of the Respondent).

However, even if the respondent denies the status of the applicant as the contractor by asserting that the contract of this case was cancelled without a legitimate ground for cancellation, it cannot be granted an exclusive status to the applicant who is merely the contractor. Moreover, the relief of the respondent due to the violation of the contract ultimately comes to the issue of compensation for damages, and it is difficult to view that there is a need for preservation to seek the prohibition of a specific act like the purport of the application, and there is no proof that there is a need for preservation differently.

Therefore, the motion of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the order of the court below is just with its conclusion, and it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Tae-chul (Presiding Judge)