바카라 사이트 디시

(1) Case background

▷A redevelopment association selected a construction company as constructor and executed a construction contract with 바카라 사이트 디시. The association terminated the contract as the constructor breached its obligation and demanded an excessive increase in construction cost.

▷The constructor filed an application for the suspension of selection of a third-party constructor and the bidding procedure against the association on the ground that the termination was illegal because no contractual event triggering the termination existed.

▷The Seoul Central District Court accepted the constructor’s application for interim relief, determining that (i) the court did not see that there was a termination event which had been arisen under the contract, and that (ii) there was room for the court to deem that the association and the constructor agreed to exclude the application of Article 673 of the Civil Code in light of the provision for the termination right under the contract.

▷The association filed an appeal against the constructor to seek to cancel the decision on interim relief and to dismiss the constructor’s application for interim relief.

(2) Litigation and our role

As counsel of the association, we strongly argued the existence of a termination event under the contract, presenting diverse evidence proving the fact that the constructor had failed to perform its obligation towards the association and had demanded an excessive increase in construction cost.

Our attorneys meticulously argued that a contract executed between an association and a constructor in relation to a urban improvement project had the nature of a construction contract, that the contract executed between the plaintiff and the defendant did not contain any provision pertaining to the exclusion of Article 673 of the Civil Code, and that even if the contract had provided a right to terminate, the application of Article 675 of the Civil Code could have not been excluded.

The Seoul Central District Court accepted all the assertions made by us, and explicitly determined that the association was entitled to terminate the contract pursuant to Article 673 of the Civil Code unless there was a special circumstance on the ground that, given the nature of a construction contract, 바카라 사이트 디시 was difficult for the court to admit the constructor’s right to demand the continuation of the contract before the completion of construction in opposition of the association’s intent.

The court finally cancelled the existing interim relief award, and dismissed the constructor’s application for interim relief since 바카라 사이트 디시 deemed that the constructor failed to sufficiently substantiate the existence of its rights to be preserved through interim relief and the necessity of interim relief to preserve its rights or that there was a change in circumstances in which the existing decision on interim relief could not be sustained.

Recently, there is an increasing number of cases in which reconstruction or redevelopment associations terminate a construction contract against constructors.  In these cases, whether associations are entitled to terminate the contracts on the basis of Article 673 of the Civil Code becomes an issue.

The decision above is meaningful in that 바카라 사이트 디시 is found that the application of Article 673 of the Civil Code cannot be haphazardly excluded even though a construction contract executed between an association and a constructor is somewhat different from general construction contracts, and that the application of Article 673 of the Civil Code cannot be excluded just on the ground that the parties to a construction contract agree to a termination right.