보증금 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
An abbreviationd name set forth in paragraph (1) of the first instance judgment shall also be used as it is.
Under the third page of the judgment of the first instance, the plaintiff of the second class (the number of parallels shall include the number of parallels in the quoted list, and each kind shall be excluded) shall be composed of "the intervenor" and "the conformity of the first class" below shall be "the conformity of the first class."
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. As follows, the Plaintiff unilaterally suspended the construction on the ground that the Intervenor did not pay the aforementioned additional construction cost, although the Intervenor did not have a duty to pay the additional construction cost incurred in the process of performing the construction site on the south side of the instant case constructed by the soil market construction method.
In other words, the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff additional construction cost in accordance with performing the construction work again in the original CIP method, because it has not been approved that the Plaintiff had to perform the construction work on the south side of the instant case as a soil level construction method on the future public service and embanking of the construction work, which is the previous contractor.
② The contractor is the contractor’s obligation to perform the construction works in advance, and accordingly the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction price is the subsequent obligation to perform.
According to the contract of this case, the intervenor cannot refuse the obligation to perform the construction works, which are the obligation to perform the construction works, and the intervenor refuses the obligation to perform the construction works without justifiable grounds, it constitutes a default.
In exceptional cases where the performance of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction cost, which is the other party, is significantly difficult, the Plaintiff may refuse the construction performance obligation. However, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 645,70,00 and the progress payment of KRW 567,248,541 are all the intervenors prior to and after the discontinuance of the instant construction work.