손해배상(기)
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for the return of contract deposit and advance payment. The judgment of the court of first instance accepted each of the above claims against Defendant C Co., Ltd., and the claim for return of advance payment against Defendant CCo., Ltd. was accepted, but the claim for contract deposit was dismissed.
Therefore, since only the defendants appealed, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the plaintiff's claims against the defendant corporation B and claims for return of advance payment against the defendant CF.
2. The court's explanation concerning this case is identical to the statement of the part falling under the scope of adjudication under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following "the part of the judgment of the court of first instance", and therefore, it is also acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. The 6th to 7th 9th west part used shall be as follows:
In full view of the purport of Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 9, Gap evidence 5-1, Gap evidence 6-1, 6-1, and 2-2, the defendant company notified the plaintiff that "the plaintiff company will pay part of the expenses and profits invested by the defendant company until February 24, 2017, the total amount of the construction cost of the defendant company incurred until February 17, 2017, the completion date of the subcontract of this case is no longer planting trees, and the plaintiff demanded the defendant company to proceed with construction several times, and the defendant company notified the defendant company that "the defendant company will pay part of the expenses and profits invested by the defendant company until February 24, 2017, the total amount of construction cost of the defendant company incurred by the time is no more than 32,241,000 won, 362,340,000 won, and the defendant company did not terminate the subcontract of this case."