beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the underlying facts are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the change of “this court” into “court of the first instance” as “court of the first instance judgment.”
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff primarily asserts as follows. (A) The "cases where the management of the two-use construction is normalization" as stipulated in Article 5 (hereinafter the provisions of this case) of the agreement of this case refers to cases where the two-use construction becomes able to pay the subcontract price normally to at least the subcontractor without any impediment, or where it is certain that the management of the two-use construction will be normalization without any need to take any measures, and "the completion of the measures for company normalization" refers to cases where the management of the two-use construction is completed in whole for the company normalization. Thus, the execution of the contract of this case does not constitute "the cases where the management of the two-use construction is normalization", and there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the suspension of the validity of the agreement of this case.
Therefore, according to the agreement of this case, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 379,318,500 ( KRW 458,580,100 - KRW 11,00,550 - KRW 68,261,050) and delay damages directly to the Plaintiff.
B. Even if the agreement of this case lost its effect pursuant to the provisions of this case, the two-way construction could not be paid the construction cost of this case during the rehabilitation procedure, and since the two-minutes of the construction cost of this case has not already been paid to the Plaintiff, the Defendant directly paid the Plaintiff the above 379,318,50 won and damages for delay, which were not paid for the construction cost of this case, pursuant to Article 14(1)1 or 3 of the Subcontract Act.