공사대금
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 reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: "2,30,00 won" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to "2,300,300 won" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance; and "the result of inquiry into the court's branch construction corporation" in the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as "the result of inquiry into the branch construction corporation of the court of first instance" in the main part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act; therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Although the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was directly paid for the construction cost of the B drainage board from the GS Construction Co., Ltd., the entries in the evidence Nos. 7 and 9 alone are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, according to the result of fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on July 17, 2015 and the purport of the entire pleadings, chip Construction Co., Ltd., upon notifying the Defendant of the cancellation of subcontract on the construction of the unclaimed, early July 17, 2015, requested the Defendant to raise an objection not later than July 21, 2015 if there is an objection against the 3,274 square meters of the term construction in the B distribution board construction, but the Defendant did not raise an objection by July 21, 2015; thereafter, chip Construction Co., Ltd., which confirmed that the actual term construction volume of the 4,503 square meters is 4,03 square meters at the Plaintiff’s request and the Defendant’s objection, made a deposit of 28,389,90 won calculated according to the actual volume of the construction work in B distribution board with the remainder of the construction price deposited by the Plaintiff, not the said 2016 Central District Court.
Therefore, S. S. S. Co., Ltd. may discharge the water.