1. The defendant's appeal and the claim for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The costs of filing an application for the return of the total costs of the lawsuit.

1. Scope of the trial of the political party after remand;

A. On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 338,50,651 at the cost of construction (a part of the claim amount is selectively agreed upon) and the damages for delay thereof, and the first instance court rejected the remainder of the claim. The Plaintiff and the Defendant filed each appeal, and the first instance court dismissed all the appeals of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 2) As a result of the second appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the part against the Defendant prior to the remand and dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Plaintiff.

B. Since the part against the plaintiff in the judgment prior to remand was already finalized according to the scope of the party trial after remanding, the scope of the party trial after remand is limited to the above part of the reversal and return, that is, to the part against the defendant in the judgment prior to remand (the part ordering the defendant to pay 6% interest per annum from February 3, 2016 to February 7, 2017, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of complete repayment).

2. The reasoning of this court’s judgment after remand is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court revises part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows and added the judgment of the defendant on the defendant’s application for return of provisional payment. Thus, it is acceptable to

The phrase “(2) whether the extinctive prescription expires or not” in the part of the first instance court’s judgment from 7th to 11th end of the first instance court’s judgment, “(2) whether the extinctive prescription expires or not,” is replaced by the following.(2) Whether Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act provides that “a claim concerning the work of the contractor,” which is cited as a claim required for the short-term extinctive prescription of 3 years under Article 163 subparag. 3