1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, although the instant construction contract was lawfully terminated by the Defendants’ notice of termination as of February 1, 2017, based on the Plaintiff’s default on the Plaintiff’s repayment of advance payment among the Defendants’ counterclaim, the termination would lose its validity in the future, unlike the cancellation, and thus, the restoration obligation does not occur.

However, in the case of cancellation or termination of a construction work contract, there is no difference in the fact that there is an obligation to restore the remaining advance payment after settlement, aside from whether or not to add the interest from the date of receipt of the advance return or to add the interest from the date of termination.

In other words, advance payments received according to construction contract are not generally paid in relation to specific skills, but part of the construction cost paid in relation to the whole construction project.

Where a contract for work is terminated or terminated after the payment of advance payment, the contractor shall be obligated to pay the unpaid amount of the contract for the work that falls under the advanced payment, as a matter of course, and the contract price remains, if the contract is terminated or terminated without a separate set-off declaration, except in extenuating circumstances.

If the advance payment is appropriated for the unpaid construction cost, the contractor has the obligation to return the remainder.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da11574, 11581, Jan. 12, 2017). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that is different from the premise is merely an independent opinion, and thus, cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.