The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court deemed that the enforcement execution contract and the contract were effective, such as the content of the instant contract Nos. 2 and 3, between the Defendant, etc. and the Plaintiff, and thus constitutes an expression of intent by mistake or deception.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the instant construction was suspended due to the Plaintiff’s delayed payment of wages and illegal design modification, and determined that the instant landowner, including the Defendant, who was the contractor, was liable to pay the Plaintiff the remuneration corresponding to the period of the instant construction work.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the interpretation of a contract, by mistake or deception, or by violating the rules of evidence.

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