1. Of the lower judgment’s damages for delay, 6% per annum from July 26, 2016 to July 20, 2018.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the instant direct payment agreement was an agreement that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the price directly to the Plaintiff with respect to the materials supplied by the Plaintiff after the instant direct payment agreement, regardless of whether the Defendant’s obligation for construction cost exists with respect to the Defendant C

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of legal act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Other grounds of appeal are with regard to the determination of the family register of the lower court, so long as the lower court did not err in its determination, the legitimacy of this part of the determination cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, it cannot be accepted without further need to be determined.

2. The decision is made ex officio.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Act”) provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation to perform prior to the adjudication of a fact-finding court declaring that the obligor has the obligation to perform the obligation, paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable extent.”

Here, "if it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation" refers to the case where the obligor's assertion in dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation is deemed reasonable and reasonable.

If the obligor's argument was accepted in the first instance trial because it contests the existence and scope of the obligation, the argument is reasonable even if it was rejected in the appellate trial.