1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is as follows, except for the dismissal of each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiff's factory at the time of suspending the subcontracted work of this case at the defendant's request, "(e) was kept raw materials purchased by the plaintiff for the performance of the contract of this case and steel structure manufactured or completed for the performance of the contract of this case. On the other hand, at the time when the plaintiff's factory ceases the subcontracted work of this case at the defendant's request, the plaintiff's factory was added to "No. 3,397,123 of TS-be (which was supplied as supplied in the state of completion of the construction work of this case and it is impossible to reuse them), ② Hebebe in an unprocessed state of 180,718,511 won as of the purchase cost, ② Hebebe in an unprocessed state of 180,718,51 won as of the purchase cost, ③ 57,362,30 won as raw materials purchased by the plaintiff's factory at the time of suspending the subcontracted construction work of this case."

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition 1 as to the Defendant’s rejection of receipt, the Plaintiff provided performance in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant contract by urging the Defendant to resume the construction to install the steel structure that has been processed, manufactured or completed at the site of the subcontracted project. However, the Defendant refused to receive the Plaintiff’s performance provision for a long period of not less than one year on the ground of the Defendant’s circumstance that the discontinuance of the instant contract was the discontinuance of the construction project. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the obligee’s delay, barring any special circumstance.