The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant determines the assertion specifically emphasized by the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the defendant's assertion ① Since the defendant has already paid the construction cost to the contractor (contractor), there is no obligation to pay the construction cost to the plaintiff who is the subcontractor (contractor) more.

② Since the Defendant only formed a sales contract as a security for the construction price, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff completed the remaining construction work and it is merely a conditional contract on the condition that the Defendant did not pay the construction price to the original contractor.

Moreover, as the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded after, the issue of payment of the remaining construction cost is merely a legal relationship between the original contractor and the plaintiff, not the defendant.

③ The Plaintiff’s contract deposit under the instant sales contract should be recognized as a lawful construction cost upon completion of construction work. However, since the Plaintiff neglected construction work after the instant sales contract and suffered a big loss to the Defendant, the said contract does not in itself become effective.

④ The Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act imposes a duty of direct payment of the subcontract price obligation on the part that the subcontractor performed at the request of the subcontractor to the extent that it does not impose a new burden exceeding the contract price obligation. Since the Defendant has already paid the total amount of the contract price, the claims asserted by the Plaintiff exceed the limit of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the contract price to the contractor, which is the ordering person, and the Defendant is not liable to pay the

(b) judgment 11;