1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where a part is rewritten or added or deleted as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence

2. The fourth 14 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied to the parts used or added to or deleted from the court. The fourth 14 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "fairly").

The following shall be added to the 12th sentence of the first instance judgment:

In addition, the Defendant asserts to the effect that C was not responsible for failing to start construction work under the instant subcontract because of the unique circumstances that make it impossible for C to perform construction work in the same season due to the characteristics of the Doing construction work. It cannot be deemed as unforeseeable unless it excessively deviates from the normal winter season. As such, the instant subcontract does not include the fact that the construction work is impossible. Moreover, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to deem that C was due to force majeure during the period of the construction work presented by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is difficult to conclude that C does not have any reason for refusing start construction work on the other premise. This part of the Defendant’s assertion on the other premise is rejected. No. 15 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept the part of the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that C was not responsible for refusing start construction work due to force majeure during the period of the construction work presented by the Plaintiff.

D. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription 1) The Defendant has the nature of guarantee, and the contract for performance guarantee of this case has already been extinguished due to the completion of extinctive prescription. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense against the Plaintiff, which is the guaranteed obligation, is objection against the Defendant.