What does the Korea construction-stop injunction break-even calculator compare?
Construction may keep moving while the parties dispute a design change, a defect, a boundary encroachment, a land-use right, or damage to neighboring property.
Continuing the disputed work can create demolition, rework, disposal, and restoration loss that cannot realistically be undone without more cash.
Stopping work can instead create site-preservation, standby, equipment, financing, safety, filing, professional, and security costs.
This calculator puts those two exposures on one timeline and one defined work scope.
The main outputs are the monetary benefit under a grant assumption, the first effective stop day that reaches break-even, three scenario burdens, the largest cash gap, and sensitivity at 50%, 100%, and 150% of the entered security amount.
It does not estimate a grant probability, predict a court decision date, determine the protected right, or recommend filing.
Use the result as a structured worksheet for a Korean lawyer, construction engineer, supervisor, finance team, or project owner.
Useful decision moments
- An owner sees a disputed pour, finish, or installation becoming irreversible within days
- A contractor must compare a stop request with documented standby and preservation costs
- A supervisor is testing a narrow disputed-work stop against a full-site stop
- A project team needs a cash plan for filing costs, security, and a possible guarantee
- Counsel needs a concise list of missing drawings, schedules, estimates, and rights documents
Korean legal framework checked for the 2026 model
Article 300 of the Civil Execution Act addresses provisional dispositions concerning a disputed subject matter and provisional dispositions fixing a temporary position.
A temporary-position measure concerns circumstances such as avoiding substantial harm or preventing imminent danger, but a financial comparison cannot establish those legal requirements.
The asserted protected right, need for preservation, urgency, proof, burden on the respondent, effects on third parties, and public consequences remain case-specific legal questions.
Korean legal provisions relevant to a construction-stop provisional disposition review| Provision | Question for counsel | Calculator boundary |
|---|
| Civil Execution Act, Article 300 | Disputed subject matter or temporary position, substantial harm, imminent danger, and preservation need | No legal-merits score and no likelihood estimate |
| Articles 301 and 280 | Procedural cross-application, prima facie showing, and security-related process | User enters security and cash-share scenarios; no statutory rate is invented |
| Articles 304 and 305 | Hearing procedure for a temporary position and measures selected by the court | Decision time and stop scope are explicit user assumptions |
| Articles 288 and 301 | Cancellation issues, including a three-year period without bringing the main action | No automatic main-action calendar or long-term litigation budget |
| Civil Act, Articles 214 and 667 | Potential foundations involving removal or prevention of interference and defects in contracted work | No determination that any substantive claim exists |
A positive number is not a legal entitlement
A high avoidable-loss estimate explains one financial consequence; it does not prove the right to restrain construction.
Counsel still must examine causation, evidentiary support, narrower alternatives, the respondent’s loss, third-party effects, and whether the requested order would effectively satisfy the main claim before trial.
The calculator deliberately keeps those questions outside the formula.
Why decision delay changes the break-even point
If only 10 risk-work days remain and the assumed decision takes 15 days, no avoidable day remains after the decision.
If 30 risk-work days remain and the assumed decision takes 7 days, as many as 23 days remain available for the stop scenario.
The model therefore removes decision exposure before it gives credit for avoided daily loss.
Planned stop days may also exceed the remaining avoidable period.
Excess days continue to add stop cost but do not add avoided loss, which prevents a longer entered stop from mechanically inflating the claimed benefit.
Actual service, effectiveness, enforcement mechanics, and the precise work covered by an order require separate review.
Decision exposure
The smaller of remaining risk days and assumed days to decision.
Daily loss during this period remains in the grant assumption.
Available avoidable days
Remaining risk days minus decision exposure, with a floor of zero.
This is the maximum credited period.
Effective stop days
The smaller of planned stop days and available avoidable days.
Only these days generate avoided daily loss.
How to support each input
Disputed-work amount and progress
Enter the contract or estimate amount for the exact work proposed to be restrained, not automatically the entire project price.
Progress is used only to display completed and remaining context; it never estimates demolition or legal loss.
Align the date and scope across drawings, bills of quantities, change instructions, and progress inspections.
Risk days and assumed decision days
Remaining risk days are the workdays during which the disputed condition keeps becoming harder or more costly to reverse.
They may be much shorter than the time to overall completion.
Enter conservative, central, and optimistic decision assumptions supplied for planning; do not present them as court averages.
Daily and one-time avoidable loss
Daily irreversible loss covers incremental demolition, rework, disposal, and restoration cash loss that grows with each risk-work day.
One-time avoidable loss is a fixed amount supported as avoidable if at least one effective stop day exists.
Do not place the same quantity or invoice in both fields.
Unavoidable or already-incurred loss
Put sunk amounts and future amounts that arise regardless of filing in this field.
The model includes them in all three scenarios, so they affect total cash exposure but not the grant-assumption net benefit.
Separating sunk cost from genuinely avoidable cost reduces overstatement.
Daily stop cost
Include incremental site preservation, safety management, standby labor, equipment, rent, and financing cost caused by the assumed stop.
Exclude ordinary costs that would arise during normal construction and remove duplicated financing items.
Run separate calculations if a narrow-work stop and a full-site stop have different cost structures.
Application cost, security, and cash
Application cost may include incremental court, service, counsel, and technical-review amounts supported by actual estimates.
The security principal and cash share are user scenarios, not statutory percentages.
The model treats cash security as temporarily locked principal rather than an unrecoverable economic cost, while charging its stated financing cost.
Calculation formulas and security treatment
decision exposure days = min(remaining risk days, assumed decision days)
available avoidable days = max(remaining risk days − decision exposure days, 0)
effective stop days = min(planned stop days, available avoidable days)
avoided loss = daily irreversible loss × effective stop days + conditional one-time loss
stop cost = daily stop cost × planned stop days
locked cash security = entered security × cash-security share
security financing cost = locked cash security × annual rate × months ÷ 12
procedure economic cost = application cost + guarantee fee + security financing cost
grant-assumption net benefit = avoided loss − stop cost − procedure economic cost
The one-time amount is credited only if at least one effective stop day exists.
Break-even is the first effective stop day on which cumulative avoided loss equals or exceeds cumulative stop and procedure costs.
If daily irreversible loss is no greater than daily stop cost, the model reports one day only when the one-time benefit covers the first-day cost; otherwise break-even is not reached.
Included as economic cost
- Incremental application and professional costs
- Guarantee premium and security setup fees
- Financing cost of the assumed cash-security portion
- Daily stop cost for all planned stop days, including excess days
Added only to the cash buffer
- Security principal assumed to be posted in cash
- Scenario economic burden plus temporarily locked cash
- The portion above immediately available cash
- Release timing and recoverability remain outside the model
Worked example: reading the default scenario
The synthetic default uses KRW 500,000,000 of disputed work at 40% progress, 30 remaining risk days, 7 assumed decision days, and 20 planned stop days.
It uses KRW 2,000,000 of daily irreversible loss, KRW 10,000,000 of one-time avoidable loss, KRW 5,000,000 of unavoidable loss, and KRW 600,000 of daily stop cost.
Procedure assumptions are KRW 12,000,000 of application cost, KRW 100,000,000 of all-cash security, 6% annual financing cost for six months, a KRW 2,000,000 guarantee or setup fee, and KRW 80,000,000 of available cash.
Default no-application, grant-assumption, and denial-assumption results| Scenario | Irreversible and one-time loss | Stop and procedure cost | Economic burden | Cash gap |
|---|
| No application | KRW 75,000,000 | KRW 0 | KRW 75,000,000 | KRW 0 |
| Application granted assumption | KRW 25,000,000 | KRW 29,000,000 | KRW 54,000,000 | KRW 74,000,000 |
| Application denied assumption | KRW 75,000,000 | KRW 12,000,000 | KRW 87,000,000 | KRW 7,000,000 |
Seven decision-exposure days leave 23 available avoidable days, so all 20 planned days are effective.
Avoided loss is KRW 50,000,000, while stop cost is KRW 12,000,000 and procedure economic cost is KRW 17,000,000.
The grant-assumption net benefit is therefore KRW 21,000,000, and break-even is reached at 5 effective stop days.
The maximum cash gap is still KRW 74,000,000 because the KRW 100,000,000 cash security is treated as temporarily locked.
Security sensitivity in the default example
Security is an entered planning assumption, not a percentage supplied by this calculator.
The sensitivity table mechanically reruns the cash-security financing cost, break-even day, net benefit, and cash gap at half, equal, and one-and-a-half times the entered amount.
Replace these values with the actual court order, guarantee terms, and financing quote when available.
Default security sensitivity at 50%, 100%, and 150%| Security assumption | Financing cost | Break-even | Granted net benefit | Cash gap |
|---|
| KRW 50,000,000 at 50% | KRW 1,500,000 | 4 days | KRW 22,500,000 | KRW 22,500,000 |
| KRW 100,000,000 at 100% | KRW 3,000,000 | 5 days | KRW 21,000,000 | KRW 74,000,000 |
| KRW 150,000,000 at 150% | KRW 4,500,000 | 7 days | KRW 19,500,000 | KRW 125,500,000 |
Economic benefit and liquidity are different tests
The default grant assumption remains economically positive at every displayed security factor, yet the cash gap rises sharply.
A scenario that appears beneficial may still be infeasible if security cannot be posted on time.
Confirm guarantee eligibility, payment timing, release conditions, and real financing terms before treating the scenario as executable.
Step-by-step workflow
- Freeze the work scope first Mark the exact drawing areas and schedule activities under review, then enter only their amount and progress.
- Build timeline scenarios Separate remaining risk-work days, assumed decision days, and planned stop days.
- Remove loss duplication Reconcile daily loss, one-time avoidable loss, and unavoidable loss line by line against estimates.
- Narrow stop costs Include incremental site, equipment, finance, and safety costs caused by the stop.
- Separate procedure from security principal Enter unrecoverable costs, security financing cost, and locked principal in their designated fields.
- Read all three scenarios Review effective days, warnings, cash buffers, and sensitivity instead of relying only on net benefit.
- Print and verify Take the result, evidence gaps, schedules, photographs, estimates, and rights documents to the responsible Korean professionals.
Practical ways to use the result
Compare a full-site stop with a narrow disputed-work stop
A full stop may avoid more loss but can also multiply standby, preservation, and financing costs.
Run the narrow alternative separately to quantify a less disruptive operational option.
The court’s authority and the legally appropriate scope are not decided by this comparison.
Do not use a single decision-date assumption
Compare dates such as 3, 7, and 14 days when they are reasonable planning inputs supplied for the matter.
A short remaining risk window can make a small timing difference reverse the sign of the benefit.
Label every result with the source and date of the assumption.
Adjust the denial path for real spending
The simplified denial scenario assumes denial before security is posted and therefore adds only application cost.
A real matter can incur hearing, appraisal, engineering, security, cancellation, and later main-action costs.
Add already-incurred or committed amounts to application cost and maintain a separate dated cash schedule.
Treat urgent safety action as a separate priority
Collapse, fire, fall, adjacent-structure damage, and other immediate hazards should not wait for a financial worksheet.
Follow the responsible site professionals and authorities for access control, stabilization, notice, and emergency action.
This model does not replace Korean construction-safety or occupational-safety duties.
Evidence checklist for the consultation file
A checked box does not mean that a legal element has been proved.
It only helps identify missing document groups before a technical or legal review.
Record the author, date, work scope, amount basis, and original file location for every item.
Rights and authority
Title records, contract terms, special conditions, land-use consent, and the respondent’s asserted authority.
Work scope
Drawings, specifications, quantities, change instructions, and a marked proposed stop area.
Timeline
Baseline and revised schedules, daily reports, dated photographs, and dates for irreversible activities.
Continue-work loss
Demolition, rework, disposal, and restoration quotations with quantity calculations and a duplication check.
Stop cost
Standby labor and equipment, site preservation, rent, finance, and safety estimates by period.
Procedure and security
Professional estimates, filing expenses, court directions, guarantee premiums, and cash-funding terms.
Frequently asked questions
Does a positive net benefit mean the application should be filed?
No.
It means only that the entered grant scenario has a lower monetary burden than the entered no-application scenario.
Protected rights, preservation need, evidence, respondent and third-party harm, security feasibility, and enforcement strategy require separate advice.
How does the calculator choose the security amount?
It does not choose one.
Enter multiple planning amounts before an order, then replace them with the actual principal, cash or guarantee split, fees, and expected duration when known.
No displayed factor is a Korean statutory security rate.
Does the tool recommend days to a decision?
No.
Correction orders, hearings, service, submissions, and complexity can change timing.
Use several matter-specific planning assumptions and label them clearly; if the entered decision days reach the end of the risk work, available avoidable days become zero.
Why is demolition loss not estimated from progress?
Equal progress percentages can involve very different materials, access, safety work, waste, salvage, and effects on adjacent work.
Progress provides contract context only; loss must come from quantities and estimates.
The tool warns when entered avoidable loss exceeds the disputed-work amount but does not invent a legal cap.
Is this the same as a construction delay liquidated-damages calculator?
No.
A delay calculator applies a contractual daily rate to attributable days after a completion deadline.
This tool compares continuing-loss, stop cost, procedure cost, and security cash on a live disputed-work timeline.
Can the printout be filed with a Korean court as proof?
The printout alone does not prove a fact, loss, or legal element.
Validate every number against its original document, scope, author, and date, and obtain appropriate professional review.
Pleading language, appraisal opinions, requested relief, and enforcement design are outside this calculator.
Official-source verification and precedent boundary
The Korean source set was checked through the National Law Information Center on August 29, 2026.
The Civil Execution Act reference is law ID 009290, MST 268837, effective February 1, 2026.
The Civil Act reference is law ID 001706, MST 284415, effective March 17, 2026.
Check later amendments, transitional provisions, and the provisions applicable to the actual facts before relying on the worksheet.
Primary materials reviewed
- Civil Execution Act, Articles 280, 288, 300, 301, 304, and 305
- Civil Act, Articles 214 and 667
- Ulsan District Court 2015Kahap10012, decided April 8, 2015, precedent ID 178059
- Supreme Court 2003Ma1753, decided March 29, 2004, precedent ID 83182
- Supreme Court 2010Ma1987, decided January 27, 2012, precedent ID 160238
The Ulsan District Court decision is a fact-specific reference showing close review of the asserted right, causation, alternatives, and broader loss where a stop request could resemble final satisfaction.
The Supreme Court decisions are reference points for the asserted substantive basis and for the effect and cancellation framework of a negative provisional disposition.
None supplies a universal grant rule, processing time, security percentage, or damages rate, and the calculator derives no such number from them.
A practical next action
Mark the final irreversible date on the schedule, then reconcile every continue-work loss line with a corresponding stop-cost line.
Print the three scenarios, security sensitivity, warnings, and unconfirmed evidence list.
Review that package with the responsible supervisor, construction professional, finance lead, and Korean counsel to confirm safety action, scope, legal options, and funding sequence.
The final decision should combine the asserted right, remaining time, narrower alternatives, respondent and third-party harm, safety, and cash feasibility rather than a single positive or negative calculator cell.