beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the court's explanation is the same as the judgment of the first instance except for partial revision as follows.
o Article 10 of the judgment of the first instance court No. 8 provides that “It is difficult to see” and “the above construction period” are as follows: “A subcontract modification contract prepared by the Defendant with the subcontractor in the second apartment site in the long-dong apartment site in order to conclude the construction resumption agreement with the above subcontractor at the time of the conclusion of the construction resumption agreement with the subcontractor, the period of construction is set up by June 30, 2014, regardless of the type of construction the subcontractor is assigned to each subcontractor, and thereafter, it is added to the period of construction as a lump sum as of October 31, 2014.”
o The following shall be added to not more than 15 pages 8 of the judgment of the first instance court:
The plaintiff at the trial of the No. 31 through 33 of the No. 204, the plaintiff asserted that the construction work of the plaintiff was not completed even after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure since it still has been installed in the attached Dong (12) within the scope of the construction of the second apartment site (No. 17) around January 29, 2014. However, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff continued the construction even after the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure of the defendant. In addition, considering the overall purport of the arguments and arguments in the entries and videos of the evidence No. 31 through No. 33, the above vision is deemed to have been installed for the tin industry after the completion of the reinforced concrete construction entrusted by the plaintiff. (8) The plaintiff did not claim that the plaintiff paid KRW 4,961,00 to the cafeteria located at the construction site after the agreement on Apr. 29, 2014, it is difficult to clearly state the status of the 19th trial creditor of the plaintiff.