[1] The requirements for the exercise of the right of rescission by the other party where one of the parties to a bilateral contract withdraws his/her declaration of non-performance

[2] The method of calculating the construction cost due to the expiration of a contract for construction works where a special agreement is made to modify the construction cost due to the design and the modification of the specifications

[1] In the case of a bilateral contract, one of the parties to the contract may lawfully rescind the contract without peremptory notice or providing performance of his/her own obligation, if the other party clearly expresses his/her intention not to perform his/her obligation. However, in cases where the declaration of intention of refusal has been lawfully withdrawn, the other party may not rescind the contract for reasons of non-performance unless he/she provides a performance of his/her obligation and gives

[2] In a case where the contractor has to settle the construction cost due to the work completion without completion and the contract for construction work has to be rescinded, the construction cost shall be calculated by applying the agreed construction cost to the agreed construction cost by applying the ratio of the completed part and the construction cost calculated based on the construction cost actually required or to be required for the non-construction part. The construction cost already completed is the ratio of the construction cost to the total construction cost required for the completion of the non-construction part. If the design and specifications are modified in the contract for construction work, the construction cost shall be calculated by applying the ratio of the changed construction cost to the total construction cost incurred for the completed part. If the design and specifications are modified in the contract for construction work, the construction cost shall be calculated by applying the ratio of the changed construction cost to the changed construction cost due to the design and specifications.

[1] Article 544 of the Civil Code / [2] Articles 664, 665, and 673 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 76Da2218 decided Nov. 9, 1976; 76Da2298 decided Nov. 29, 197; 76Da2218 decided Nov. 9, 197 (Gong1976, 948); 80Da66 decided Mar. 25, 198 (Gong1980, 12741); 81Da6339 decided Nov. 24, 1981 (Gong1989, 197)

New Engineering Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Kim Sung-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

East system business corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na65924 delivered on June 21, 2000

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the court below, the plaintiff's new construction contract was cancelled on November 7, 194; the defendant's new construction contract was cancelled on the same 7-day basis; the defendant's new construction contract was cancelled on the same 8-day basis; the defendant's new construction contract was cancelled on the same 7-day basis; the defendant's new construction contract was cancelled on the same 8-day basis; the defendant's new construction contract was cancelled on the same 1-day basis; the defendant's new construction contract was cancelled on the same 7-day basis; the defendant's new construction contract was cancelled on the 8-day basis; the defendant's new construction contract was cancelled on the 1-day basis; the plaintiff's new construction contract was cancelled on the same 7-day basis; the plaintiff's new construction contract was cancelled on the 1-day basis; the plaintiff's new construction contract was cancelled on the 1-day basis; the plaintiff's new construction contract was cancelled on the same 7-day basis; and the contract was modified on the 3-day.

B. The judgment of this Court

Of the judgment of the court below, the part that the construction contract of this case was rescinded due to the plaintiff's causes is not acceptable for the following reasons.

In the case of a bilateral contract, one of the parties to the contract may lawfully rescind the contract without demanding the other party to perform his/her obligation or providing the other party to perform his/her obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da66, Mar. 25, 1980; 81Da633, Nov. 24, 1981; 92Da9463, Sept. 14, 1992; 92Da9463, Sept. 14, 1992); however, in cases where the declaration of intention to refuse the performance has been lawfully withdrawn, the contract cannot be rescinded for reasons of default unless the other party provides the performance of his/her obligation and gives a peremptory notice to perform the obligation within a set period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 76Da1085, Sep. 14, 1976; 8Da1516, 1523, 198; 80Da1036, Mar. 16, 19).

기록에 의하면, 원고와 피고 사이에 이 사건 공사계약이 체결된 이후 피고에 의한 설계 및 사양변경으로 인하여 공사대금이 증가되고 공사일정이 지연되던 중 원고와 피고는 1995. 7. 15. PANEL 납품일정을 협의하여 원고가 BAGGING LOCAL PANEL 7면은 같은 해 7. 29.까지, FLAKE LOCAL CONTROL PANEL 5면과 LIQUID LOCAL CONTROL PANEL 2면은 같은 해 8. 10.까지 피고에게 납품하고, PELLET 7면, BULK 1면, EXPANDER 5면, BULK 2면 등 기타 PANEL은 피고가 소개하는 업체에 의뢰하여 같은 해 8. 5.까지 원고가 납품하며, MAIN GRAPHIC PANEL은 같은 해 8. 10.까지 납품하는 것을 원칙으로 하되 정확한 일정은 같은 해 7. 22.까지 재협의하기로 합의하고(을 제30호증의 1, 기록 273면), 같은 해 7. 20. 설계 및 사양변경에 따른 추가 공사대금의 정산방법에 대한 협의를 하였으나, 원고는 거래명세표, 세금계산서 및 실투입경비를 기준으로 한 추가공사대금을 정한 후 재개약을 체결한 다음 후속작업을 할 수 있으며 정산 및 재계약이 이루어지지 않는 경우에는 추가 납품이 불가능하다고 주장함에 대하여 피고는 계약단가를 기준으로 정산을 하되 정산시점은 시운전 완료 후로 하여야 한다고 주장함으로써 협의가 결렬된 사실(을 제30호증의 2, 기록 274면), 피고는 같은 해 7. 20. 추가공사대금에 대한 협상이 결렬되자마자 원고에게 전화로 계약을 해지하겠으니 작업을 중단하라고 지시하고(갑 제15호증의 1, 기록 1000면) 같은 해 7. 24.에 이르러 서면으로 계약해지를 검토 중이라는 이유로 모든 관련 작업을 별도 통보시까지 중지하고 원고가 보유하고 있는 작업 물량 중 원고가 피고에게 판매하고자 하는 물품에 대한 단가 내역을 알려달라고 통보하자(을 제31호증의 1, 기록 275면), 원고는 같은 해 7. 24. 자신이 하도급을 준 주식회사 삼정시엔엠시스템(이하 '삼정시엔엠시스템'이라 한다)에게 같은 해 4. 19. 발주한 MOSAIC BOARD 제작작업을 중지하라고 지시한 후(갑 제6호증의 2, 기록 787면), 같은 해 7. 25. 피고에게 위와 같이 작업이 중단된 작업 물량에 대하여 알려주면서 물품에 대한 단가는 먼저 해약합의가 이루어진 후 협의할 것을 회신한 사실(을 제31호증의 3, 기록 277면), 위와 같은 경위로 원고와 피고 사이에 이 사건 공사계약이 해지되기 직전의 단계까지 이르렀으나, 같은 해 7. 26. 한진건설이 피고에게 공기지연에 따른 책임을 물으려고 하자(을 제32호증의 1, 기록 278면) 피고는 다시 원고에게 추가공사대금의 정산협의를 약속하며 물품의 납품기일을 조정하여 계속하여 납품할 것을 요청한 사실, 이에 원고는 위 요청을 받아들여 같은 해 7. 27. BAGGING MCC G/B PANEL 7면은 같은 해 8. 15.까지, FLAKE LOCAL MCC PANEL 4면은 같은 해 8. 18.까지, LIQUID LOCAL MCC PANEL 2면은 같은 해 8. 22.까지, FLAKE LOCAL GRAPHIC PANEL 1면은 같은 해 8. 25.까지, MAIN G/B PANEL 1면은 같은 해 8. 31.까지 원고가 피고에게 납품할 수 있고, PELLET LOCAL MCC G/B PANEL 7면, BULK LOCAL MCC G/B PANEL 2면, EXPANDER LOCAL MCC G/B PANEL 5면은 피고가 추천하는 업체인 현우계전 주식회사(이하 '현우계전'이라 한다)의 의견을 들어 같은 해 8. 15.부터 같은 해 8. 30.까지 사이에 피고에게 납품할 수 있다고 회신하는 한편(갑 제14호증, 기록 999면; 을 제33호증, 기록 280면), 같은 해 7. 29. PANEL 재료비를 83,590,000원, 인건비를 88,490,000원으로 계산하여 향후 납품할 공사부분의 정산에 필요한 내역서를 피고에게 송부한 사실, 원고가 정산을 요구하는 액수가 피고가 예상한 금액을 훨씬 초과하자 피고는 다시 일방적으로 원고에게 납기일정을 같은 해 8. 12. 이내로 조정할 것을 통보하였으나, 원고는 같은 해 7. 31. 피고에게 피고의 추천으로 원고가 하도급을 준 현우계전이 각 업체의 휴가일정 등으로 인하여 같은 해 8. 31.까지 납품이 가능하다고 회신한 것(갑 제7호증의 2, 기록 789면)을 토대로 납품기일 조정이 불가능하다고 통보한 사실(을 제36호증, 기록 286면), 피고는 위 통보를 받자마자 같은 날 원고에게 작업중단을 요청하고, 같은 해 8. 4. 원고가 같은 달 8. 12.까지 약정한 물품을 전부 납품하지 아니하는 때에는 이 사건 공사계약을 해제하며, 그 때까지 완성된 물품은 피고가 인수하고, 반재품, 자재 등을 구입원가로 구입하겠다는 내용의 통보를 하였고, 이에 대하여 원고는 같은 해 8. 12.까지는 납품이 불가능하다는 회신을 한 사실, 피고는 위와 같이 원고에게 이 사건 공사계약의 해제를 통보한 후 같은 해 8. 9. 원고가 완성하지 못한 나머지 LOCAL PANEL의 납품을 위하여 현우계전과 사이에 하도급계약을 체결하면서 그 납품기한을 같은 해 9. 30.까지로 정하였고(을 제43호증의 1, 기록 1351면), 같은 해 8. 23. MOSAIC BOARD의 납품을 위하여 삼정시엔엠시스템과 사이에 하도급계약을 체결하면서 그 납품기한을 같은 해 8. 30.까지로 정한 사실(을 제45호증의 1, 기록 1367면), 피고는 이 사건 공사계약의 해제통보를 한 후 원고에게 공사대금의 정산을 위한 협의를 요청하였으나 원고가 이에 응하지 아니하다가 원고는 같은 해 9. 26. 피고에게 실공사비 금 267,900,000원의 정산금지급을 요구한 사실(갑 제9호증, 기록 792면)을 인정할 수 있다.

According to the above facts, after the conclusion of the construction contract of this case, the construction work was discontinued on July 15, 1995 between the plaintiff and the defendant on the ground that the total construction cost increased due to the defendant's design and the alteration of the pattern of construction work, while the construction schedule was delayed on July 15, 1995. However, at the defendant's request, there was no agreement on the alteration of the construction cost due to the design and the alteration of the pattern of construction work under Article 7 of the construction contract of this case on July 20, 1995, the construction work was suspended on the same date. After that, at the defendant's request, the plaintiff again presented the delivery deadline under the construction contract of this case on July 27, 1995, and the plaintiff started the consultation on the alteration of the construction cost due to the design and the alteration of the pattern of construction, but the defendant requested the suspension of the re-construction work of this case to terminate the construction contract of this case, if it is well known that the plaintiff could not complete the construction work until August 12, 1995.

In the same way, even if the plaintiff requested adjustment and renewal of the cost of construction for additional construction in accordance with Article 7 of the construction contract of this case between the defendant on July 20, 1995 and the contract of this case, it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff clearly refused performance of the construction contract of this case, unless the above request of the plaintiff is clearly unfair. Even if it is not for home, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, upon receiving a request from the defendant for resumption of construction work of this case from the defendant, presented a new construction schedule to the defendant on July 27, 1995, and withdrawn the intention of refusal. Thus, at the time of August 4, 1995, the defendant notified the plaintiff of his intention of refusal to cancel the construction contract of this case by failing to perform the construction contract of this case within the time limit for delivery (or extended time limit for delivery) under the contract of this case, the plaintiff's refusal to perform the construction contract of this case cannot be viewed as being the plaintiff's refusal to perform the construction contract of this case within the time limit for delay of 9 years.

Nevertheless, the decision of the court below that the contract of this case was cancelled due to the plaintiff's cause by cancelling the contract of this case on the grounds stipulated in Article 13 (1) 1 of the construction contract of this case shall be deemed to have committed an error of law in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to cancellation of contract due to the violation of the rules of evidence. The ground of appeal

2. As to the third ground for appeal

In cases where a contractor has to settle the construction cost due to the rescission of a construction contract without completion of the construction work, the construction cost shall be calculated by applying the agreed construction cost to the cost of construction calculated on the basis of the work cost actually required or to be required for the non-construction part. The completed and ratio of the construction cost is the ratio of the construction cost already completed to the total construction cost (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu32470, 32487, Dec. 26, 1989; 91Da42630, Mar. 31, 1992; 93Da25080, Jun. 23, 1993; 94Da2930, Jun. 9, 195; 293Da293094, Feb. 94, 1995; 209Da329737, Sept. 29, 209).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, where the construction contract in this case is cancelled, the defendant paid 00 won to the plaintiff not later than that time, and the defendant agreed to calculate the unit price of contract stated in the estimate submitted by the plaintiff (the new goods arising from the modification of a design shall be agreed upon by both parties). The plaintiff's material cost actually invested for the construction work in this case shall be 13,08,812, and the plaintiff shall be 302,19,380, 19,300, 19,000, 2,000, 300, 300, 300, 300, 300, 80, 300, 80, 300, 80, 300, 80, 300, 80, 300, 300, 300, 10, 300, 300, 10, 300.

However, the above calculation method adopted by the court below is based on the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance court on the premise that the cost of materials input in the completed portion is KRW 133,08,812, and that the cost of materials input by the defendant for the unconstruction portion is KRW 150,142,959, respectively, and that the revised construction cost of this case was reduced to less than the cost of construction under the original contract, and that the revised construction cost of this case was 314,073,820 won (gold KRW 13,08,812 + KRW 150,142,959)/90.18%, unless the validity of the above premise is verified. Thus, the above calculation method cannot be allowed because there is no evidence to acknowledge the above premise.

Rather, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for settlement of the completed portion to the Defendant (No. 40, No. 799 of the record), and submitted a detailed statement of the non-construction portion (No. 34-1, No. 2, and No. 281 of the record). As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant confirmed a modified part of the design and specifications in comparison with a estimate that is the content of the initial contract at the time of the initial contract, and then, based on the settlement principle of the construction contract in this case, the calculated unit price of the original contract in this case. ② In the case of a new product, the calculated unit price of the new product shall be calculated based on the mutual agreement and the amount, and 48.72% [286, No. 97,786 won [No. 286, No. 786 + 301, 936,650 won], which is recognized as the result of the appraisal by the appraiser in the first instance court (No. 621 of the record];

Nevertheless, the decision of the court below, based on the material cost for the completed portion of the plaintiff, calculated based on the result of the first instance court's appraisal, calculated based on the ratio of material cost to the cost for the original construction work of this case under the construction contract of this case, is deemed to have committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the selection of appraisal results and the method of calculating the cost for the completed construction work. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)