공사대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, Plaintiff Han-chul, who constitutes the following money ordering payment or additional payment.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following parts between the 6th and 14th of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
“5) The Intervenor filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for the construction cost (the Seoul High Court Decision 2011Na24350, 2014Gahap4517 (Counterclaim)) while receiving a subcontract payment from the Defendant, and the Defendant did not receive part of the price. The above court rendered a judgment on the ground that “the Defendant actually concluded a contract with the Intervenor for the construction of the instant commercial building, and delegated the us with the overall supervision of the construction work, and it is reasonable to deem that the additional construction work was done directly by the Defendant, such as the Rotterdam Corporation, Fire Fighting Corporation, and Power Station Corporation, etc., and the 198,346,767 won as the construction cost, and delayed payment damages therefor, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Intervenor the entire portion of the instant commercial building construction work, other than the part of the instant building construction work, which was awarded to the Intervenor and the 2015Na16356 (Counterclaim) on October 8, 2015.”
2. The parties' assertion
A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiffs asserted is the pension of this case.