양수금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional statements, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
[Supplementary Description]
1. According to the statement No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2 (written evidence) in the letter No. 7 of the judgment No. 12, the defendant must consult with the company and the defendant to settle the unpaid construction cost due to the waiver of the above half-way construction in the way of deducting the construction cost corresponding to the remaining construction cost (unconstruction, defect repair, and additional construction) from the unpaid construction cost. Accordingly, the defendant made a lump sum contract to F on the same day for all the remaining construction cost, including the defect repair work incurred from the main construction. As such, the defendant is in principle liable for repair work, in principle, to F on the defect that occurred from the main construction, and the repair work due to the decision that G performed as the defect repair work under the main construction of this case, if the repair work is deemed as the object of deduction as the defect repair work under the main construction of this case as alleged by the defendant, it is overlapping with the part of the contract to F and thus, it becomes a double calculation of the construction cost subject
2. On the 7th judgment of the court of first instance, it is true that the defendant asserted deduction of KRW 13,590,000 under the 4th judgment below, and that the defendant agreed on the deduction items prior to the preparation of the earlier termination termination statement on November 5, 2012, the defendant stated that the 13,600,000 won of the 13.6 million won of the 13.6 million won of the 1st century, and that the plaintiff would confirm this. Accordingly, the above party's 4th judgment added "the fact that it is reasonable to deem that the 13.6 million won of the 13.6 million won of the 1st century of the 4th judgment was scheduled for
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit.