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 of the judgment of the court of first instance is that even if the evidence submitted by the defendant in the trial is added to the evidence, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant was exempted from the payment of remaining debts, such as the above settlement amount, by the plaintiff's side in order to perform the obligation to pay agreed amount to the defendant of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the supply and demand of the Grand City Construction Project, and that the new argument of the defendant in the trial is stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as described in paragraph (2) below to the new argument of the
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts that the part of the claim purchase cost of KRW 16,181,374 out of the above settlement amount and other claims is not obligated to pay the above expenses not later than the delivery of regional development bonds corresponding to the above expenses. However, according to the statement in the evidence No. 5, it is only possible to find out the fact that the Defendant, etc., who is a joint supplier and subcontractor of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction
B. The Defendant asserts that claims, such as the above settlement money, are “claims related to construction” under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and the three-year prescription has already expired. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that claims such as the above settlement money, etc. constitute claims related to construction as stipulated in the said Act. Rather, according to the aforementioned evidence, the additional construction and the Defendant, etc. entered into a joint supply and demand agreement with respect to the above Grandland construction around June 2006, and claims such as the above settlement money, and the construction payment that was received by the said construction at the request of the ordering office