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 reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the construction price reduced due to nonperformance of the above performance assumption agreement, on the ground that, at the time of the instant settlement agreement, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to accept performance, instead of paying the construction price of KRW 275,859,000, reduced to the other settlement of accounts for the instant construction project, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion of the assumption of obligation is included in the Plaintiff’s assertion of acceptance of performance.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of pleading,

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.