(a) Definition of a juristic act;

B. Under the contract for construction works, any interpretation of the contract to the effect that the interest rate on the construction cost, etc. shall apply to the monetary trust loan interest rate in a commercial bank.

(c) the party who bears the burden of proving the minimum interest rate, in the event that the interest rate under “B” is several;

D. The standard for determining "completion of construction", which is the completion date of liquidated damages, in the agreement on liquidated damages for delay in the construction contract of new buildings

A. The interpretation of a juristic act is to clarify the objective meaning which the party gave to the act of indication.

B. According to the construction contract agreement, if a contractor entered in an agreement to apply the interest rate on the construction cost, etc. to the contractor, the interest rate on the loan of money trust in a commercial bank is not specified specifically in the language and text of the agreement. In light of the fact that where a contractor or contractor fails to pay the contractor the construction cost due to the loan of money, the contractor’s agreement to pay the amount equivalent to the loan of money to the contractor as compensation is inconsistent with the objective meaning of the above agreement. If there are several conditions depending on the company’s credit condition at the time of delay in the payment of the construction cost, the contractor’s interest rate on the loan of money trust in a commercial bank at the time of delay in the payment of the construction cost, the lowest interest rate among the interest rate on the loan of money trust in a commercial bank shall be applied.

C. In the case of "B", the burden of proving that the minimum interest rate is specific shall be borne by the party asserting the payment of compensation due to delay in the payment of the construction cost by applying the "interest rate on the money trust loan of the City Bank" under the above agreement.

D. The criteria to distinguish between the failure to complete construction of a new building and the defect are deemed to have been completed in the event that the last process intended to be interrupted during the process of construction is not completed. However, it is reasonable to interpret that the construction is completed as a building in accordance with generally accepted social norms and its main structural part is completed as a result of the completion of construction, and it is only a defect in the subject matter if the main structural part is to be repaired due to incomplete construction. Whether the last process scheduled in individual cases has been completed must be objectively determined in light of the details of the construction contract in question and the principle of trust and good faith without seeking a contractor’s argument. Such standards also apply to the agreement on liquidated damages for delay, which has the nature of a contractor’s delay in the completion of construction.

a.B.Article 105(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 261(d) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 664, 665, and 667 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2375, 2376 Decided September 27, 198 (Gong1988, 1321)

Cheongju Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. The plaintiff-appellant 1 and 1.8

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Na4142 delivered on May 24, 1994

The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in determining the defendant's counterclaim for offset, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff agreed to apply the interest rate on the money trust loan interest rate of the banks in the city with respect to the interest rate on the construction expenses, etc. to be paid to the defendant, based on the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 (Contract for Construction Works). The purport of the above agreement is to interpret that the plaintiff agreed to pay compensation to the defendant in the amount equivalent to the interest that the defendant received from the bank in the event that the plaintiff did not pay the defendant a progress payment due to the fact that the plaintiff did not pay the defendant a progress payment due to the fact that he did not pay it to the defendant. The money trust loan interest rate of a commercial bank in the whole of the arguments in the statement in evidence No. 8-3 is different according to the company's credit condition, but there is no proof of the above interest rate on the money trust loan interest rate of the defendant, and thus the amount

B. In light of the fact that the interpretation of a juristic act clearly establishes the objective meaning that the party concerned gave to the act of indicating it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2365, 2376, Sept. 27, 198), and that the provision does not expressly state that the interest rate shall apply to the case where the party concerned and the defendant obtain a loan from a bank, as stated in the judgment of the court below, if the plaintiff did not pay the construction cost due to the nature of the contract, it shall not be deemed that the defendant agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the interest that would be paid by the bank as compensation to the defendant. As duly determined by the court below, it is not against the objective meaning of the above agreement, and if there are several prices depending on the company's credit condition at the time of the payment of the construction cost, the interest rate at the time of the commercial bank is the lowest interest rate on the loan to the defendant, and it shall be deemed that the party concerned bears the burden of proving the payment of the construction cost in accordance with the agreement.

C. Therefore, the court below's determination that "where the plaintiff did not pay progress payment to the defendant due to the nature of the above agreement, the defendant agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the interest that the plaintiff received from the bank as compensation" was erroneous in the meaning of the above agreement or recognized facts that conflict with the agreement of the parties without evidence. However, the court below did not prove any proof as to the interest rate on the above money trust loan to the defendant, and it is just in calculating the compensation due to the delay in payment of the mid-term amount by applying 12% per annum as the minimum standard interest rate for the plaintiff, and there is no error in the judgment below's failure to pay the same reasons as the theory of lawsuit, inconsistent reasoning, or incomplete deliberation. There is no reason to argue.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff compensation for delay calculated at the rate of 1/100 of the amount of the initial construction contract per day when the construction of the building of this case is not completed within the construction period from May 30, 1990 to August 30, 191, and interpreted "the time the construction work is completed" as "the time the contractor completed the construction work and deliver it to the contractor with all documents necessary for the completion inspection" as stated above. The defendant requested the plaintiff on January 28, 1992, but some construction was completed at the time, and all documents necessary for the completion inspection were not kept at the time, and the plaintiff refused the completion inspection on February 15, 199, the contract was delivered first of six stories of the building of this case to the date 100 to August 30, 1991, and the construction work of this case was completed at the latest 90 days after the completion inspection was completed, and the defendant did not pay the remaining amount to the plaintiff 196.

B. In the case of incomplete construction of a building under a new construction contract, whether it can be seen as an incomplete completion or as an incomplete completion of construction, but whether it can be seen as an object of construction is an incomplete defect or not includes an actual important problem.

Where the construction work of a building is not completed, it shall be a matter of default, and in principle, the contractor shall not claim the payment of the construction amount (the principle of the follow-up payment) and where there is a defect in the building which is the object, the contractor may claim the payment of the construction amount to the contractor, but the contractor may refuse the payment of the construction amount until the contractor exercises the right of defense of the simultaneous performance by asking the contractor's warranty against the defects.

It does not require that the civil law is caused by the contractor's negligence, and it does not ask the contractor whether it is a hidden defect or not, and recognizes the contractor's right to claim the repair of defects. On the other hand, it aims at allowing the contractor to acquire the defective object, and on the other hand, allowing the contractor to obtain the right to claim the remuneration easily.

In other words, as long as the object is not completed, the contractor cannot claim the remuneration, the Civil Code protects the contractor's heavy liability for warranty, on the other hand, relaxs the criteria for determining the completion of the object to the extent possible, and recognizes the contractor's right to the remuneration, but if there is any defect in the object delivered by the contractor, it is reasonable to interpret it as the purpose of legislation.

Therefore, the criteria to distinguish between the failure to complete construction of a building and the failure to complete the scheduled final process due to the interruption of construction during the course of construction, shall be deemed to have been completed if the construction is not completed. However, it is reasonable to interpret that it is completed as a building under the generally accepted social norms in cases where the main structural part is to be repaired due to incomplete construction, but it is only a defect in the object but it is completed if it is to be repaired due to such incomplete construction. In individual cases, the issue of whether the final process scheduled to be completed has been completed must be objectively determined in light of the specific contents of the construction contract and the principle of trust and good faith without the reliance of the contractor's argument. This standard is also applied to the agreement on compensation for delay, which has the nature as the liquidated damages for delay of the completion of construction by the contractor.

C. According to the main structural parts of the building No. 1 and No. 2 which were lawfully adopted by the court below, the defendant had no record of construction of the building No. 2 at the time of completion of construction of the building No. 1 and No. 1 and No. 2. The defendant had no record of construction of the building No. 2 at the time of completion of construction of the building No. 1 and no record of construction of the building No. 2 at the time of completion of construction of the building No. 1 and no record of construction of the building No. 2 at the time of completion of construction of the building No. 1 and no. 9. The plaintiff had no record of completion of construction of the building No. 2 at the time of completion of construction of the building No. 9 and no record of construction of the building No. 2 at the time of completion of construction of the building No. 1 and no record of construction of the building No. 9 were submitted to the plaintiff No. 2 at the time of completion of construction of the building No. 1 and no record No. 4 were recorded by the court below.

D. Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged and judged that the construction of the building of this case was completed to the extent that it can undergo a completion inspection on April 16, 1992, and ordered the defendant to pay compensation for delay up to April 16, 192. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the completion of a work in the contract for new construction of a building, or in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)