1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,741,736 to the Plaintiff, as well as 6% per annum from March 18, 2015 to December 14, 2017.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that aims at the manufacture, sale, and construction business of solar energy machinery and appliances, and the Defendant is a company that aims at a new and renewable energy business.

B. On October 8, 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Plaintiff under which solar equipment and cooling and heating pumps are installed (hereinafter “instant construction work”) on the 1st ground of the Magdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s Magdong Village Complex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant building”) located on the part of the Plaintiff on a contract for construction cost of KRW 50 million (including value added tax).

C. According to the instant construction contract, the Defendant determined to pay the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 6 million out of the contract price of KRW 50 million within 15 days after concluding the instant construction contract.

However, the instant construction contract has a provision stating that “the instant construction contract takes effect at the same time as the Defendant deposits down payment” (hereinafter “instant provision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] The judgment as to the non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the ground for a claim as a whole

A. Although the construction is suspended during the course of construction and the completion of the final process intended to be completed, it shall be deemed that the construction has not been completed. However, if the construction is completed by the last process scheduled to be completed and its main structure has been completed as agreed and the construction has been completed by social norms as agreed. However, if it is necessary to compensate due to incomplete construction, it shall be interpreted that the construction is completed but it is only that there is any defect in the object.

The issue of whether the last fairness in this context has been terminated must be judged objectively in light of the specific contents of the contract and the principle of good faith, regardless of the contractor's assertion or the completion inspection conducted by the contractor.