공사대금
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the defendant's each "defendant" at the end of 16, 17 and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance; the "defendants" at the 8th and the "Defendants" at the 10th and the "Defendants" at the 10th and 5th are as follows: "Defendants"; "Defendants" at the 10th and 11th and 5th are as "the first instance court"; and "the case" at the 11th and 5th are as to the counterclaims in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment at the court of first instance as follows, the corresponding part shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. As examined in the above cited part of the judgment added, there is no dispute between the parties as to the point that the above day was August 26, 2017 on the date the approval for use of the instant building was obtained.
[However, there is a statement that the Defendants alleged in the trial that it was August 28, 2017 (see, e.g., Article 10(3) and Article 23(1) of the Construction Contract of this case). However, even if the above day is August 28, 2017, the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance cannot be changed disadvantageous to the Plaintiff due to the increase of the number of delayed days under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration even if the above day is August 28, 2017). It is reasonable to deem that the work is completed (as pointed out in the first instance trial, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff requested a written request for the completion inspection under the construction contract of this case or its completion inspection was not passed (see, e.g., Articles 10(3) and 23(1) of the Construction Contract of this case). Since the entries or images of subparagraphs 33 through 48 of the Plaintiff additionally submitted at the trial of the first instance are insufficient to recognize the above parts or its relevant facts, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable.
3. As such, the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.