beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The parties concerned are the owners of five sections of apartment construction works in Daegu-do (hereinafter “instant construction”) and the non-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-party-based construction (hereinafter “
The Plaintiff is a person who issues a performance bond with the Defendant as a guarantee creditor with respect to the instant construction work.
(b) Conclusion of a contract for construction works and a performance bond; 1) The defendant (referring to the Korea National Housing Corporation before being merged as the defendant under the Korea Land and Housing Corporation;
only to the defendant below
B. On August 27, 2007, the contract amount of the instant construction work was 3,740,000,000 won (this 36,043,922,584 won) with respect to the instant construction work, between the joint supply and demand contractors consisting of Daedong-C, and 190,000 won (with respect to the instant construction work, 80%).
(2) The construction contract of this case is concluded on October 31, 2009 (construction machinery) and November 20, 2009 (civil engineering) and 1/100 of the contract amount for liquidated damages (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).
(2) On August 27, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded a performance guarantee contract between the Defendant, the guaranteed creditor, the guaranteed amount of KRW 16,870,000,000, and the warranty period from August 27, 2007 to November 30, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant warranty contract”) under the special conditions of the construction contract (the Accounting Rules of June 14, 2007) and the general conditions of the construction contract (the Accounting Rules of March 5, 2007), and the general conditions of the construction contract (the Accounting Rules of March 5, 2007). The Plaintiff did not perform the contractual obligation under the front contract (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”) of the construction project (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”).