공사대금
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant B and C shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff, defendant B, C.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this part 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 dismissal or addition. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be removed or added;
A. On January 9, 2012, the first instance court’s decision No. 4, 2012, stated “ January 9, 2012” as “ January 19, 2012.”
B. On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added.
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The decision of the court of first instance on May 30, 2016 by the Defendants to recommend reconciliation (hereinafter “the decision on recommending reconciliation in this case”) was finalized on June 17, 2016 on the grounds that the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not raise any objection by June 16, 2016, which is the objection period.
B. As to the decision of the court of first instance on May 30, 2016 on the recommendation of reconciliation by the court of first instance on behalf of the defendant A, it is apparent in the record that T law firm has raised an objection on June 15, 2016, which is the filing period for objection on behalf of the defendant A, and such procedural acts are effective due to the lawful delegation of the power of attorney. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the decision of this case on the recommendation of reconciliation against the defendant A was not confirmed. As to the above, the above defendant did not have the power of attorney as the letter of delegation of the lawsuit by T law firm did not affix the seal of the defendant A, and (2) even if the power of attorney is recognized, the law firm T does not have the authority to arbitrarily raise an objection on the recommendation of reconciliation. Thus, it is not effective that T law firm has made an objection on the decision of this case on behalf of the defendant A, and ③ The objection filed by the defendant A shall not be effective as to the case where the intervenor's procedural acts are contrary to the intervenor's procedural acts under Article 76 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The first.