The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant should bear the charges pursuant to Article 18(2) of the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction Works incorporated into the contents of the contract for new construction works (hereinafter “General Conditions”) since the damages incurred due to typhoons among the instant construction works were conducted by the construction supervisor. ① The instant construction works included expenses for the sale in lots and public relations in addition to the net construction cost, including model hybrids construction cost, design cost, supervision cost, defect guarantee fee, etc. The Plaintiff agreed to be responsible for the construction and sale of the instant apartment, and the Defendant paid the remainder of the construction work only when the Plaintiff’s remainder of construction work exceeds the total sale price of the unsold housing unit. ② The supervisor and supervisor of construction works are deemed to have been paid the Defendant with the construction work price in conformity with the standard of construction supervisor’s duty under Article 18 of the General Conditions, even if the Defendant, who is the contractor, was not a large enterprise, on the ground that the construction work price falls under the sale in lots, and thus, it is difficult to determine the construction work price separately from the construction work price.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law in misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 6916 of May 29, 2003).

2. As to the defendant's appeal

The court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in its reasoning. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the balance of the construction work in accordance with the order of the construction work in this case, and the payment of the balance of the construction work in this case is made in cooperation with the defendant at the plaintiff's request for withdrawal of deposit in the account jointly managed by the plaintiff and the defendant, but the conclusion of the contract for the alteration work that became an issue between the plaintiff and the defendant and the payment of the balance of the construction work in this case is separate from any other performance-related relationship, and even according to the defendant's proposal, there was no possibility of entering into a contract for the alteration work with the contents of the reduction of the construction cost, so it is unfair for the defendant to refuse the payment of the balance of the construction work in this case on the ground that the amount of the additional construction cost has not been agreed, and therefore the defendant is obligated to pay

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are correct, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation as alleged in the grounds of appeal, misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the time of payment

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)