Case Overview
In a dispute arising from the Phase 2 Main Facilities Construction Project for the Low- and Intermediate-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, the claimant sought KRW 24.8 billion in additional indirect costs, asserting that approximately 2,008 days (5.5 years) of construction delay—attributable to the respondent—gave rise to substantial extended overhead.
While the respondent acknowledged the obligation to compensate for delay-related indirect costs, it consistently argued that the claimant’s calculation was excessive and overstated.

Key Issues

• Complex, multi‑layered expansion of indirect cost items due to long‑term delays
• Disputes regarding calculation methods, assumptions, expert valuation models, and evidentiary sufficiency
• Allocation of costs during overlapping periods with other contracts (duplication, apportionment, attribution)
• High‑level accounting, scheduling, and project‑controls analysis required to evaluate item-by-item claims

• Comprehensive review of all schedules, cost breakdowns, manpower/equipment logs, site records, and expert reports
• Item‑by‑item rebuttal, challenging causation, quantifiability, and the absence of reasonable calculation grounds
• Systematic critique of expert assumptions and formulas, identifying overstated and duplicated cost components
• Clear articulation of cost attribution principles for periods where other construction contracts overlapped

Outcome
The arbitral tribunal accepted the majority of One Law Partners, LLC’s arguments, rejecting approximately KRW 14 billion of the KRW 24.8 billion claim, and recognizing only about KRW 10.8 billion.
→ More than 56% of the claimed amount was successfully defended, substantially reducing the client’s financial exposure.

Significance
This case demonstrates One Law Partners, LLC’s capability to deliver strong results in large-scale construction and infrastructure disputes involving extended overhead claims.
The firm’s precise verification of expert methodologies, rigorous cost‑attribution analysis, and structured rebuttal of inflated cost items provide a practical benchmark for future long‑delay project disputes and risk‑management strategies.