공사대금
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, if the court excludes the parts to be used or added as described in the following paragraph (2), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
A. On June 19, 2015, the text of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 13, 2015," "No. 8, 17, 10, and 14, "this court" respectively, "No. 14," "No. 8, 2015," "No. 9, 94, 195," respectively, "No. 305,64, 195," "No. 306, 64, 195," "No. 10, 10, 100, 100, 8, 8, 21, 8, 21, 8, 21, 9, 9, 9, 9, 111, 9, 13, 13, 306, 205, 10, 10, 10, and 4, 304, 10, and 4, the remaining construction price shall be paid.
On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of undertaking that “I agree to appropriate part of the proceeds from sale as the principal’s price at each time of sale where a partitioned parcel after the completion of the construction of real estate is sold after sale, you agree to appropriate it as the principal’s price at each time of sale.” As seen earlier.
However, according to Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 12, it can be recognized that the contract of this case provides that "payment shall be made within five days from the date of completion of the construction work," with respect to the remaining payment period of the construction work. In light of these facts, the content of the contract of this case appears to have determined the payment method of the construction work, and the payment of the construction work separately from the contract of this case.