beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2. The expenses of filing an application for the return of the provisional payment of the appeal cost.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the "defect prior to the use inspection on the apartment of this case" under Section 13, Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "after the use inspection on the apartment of this case", and the "4. conclusion" under Section 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "5. Conclusion", and the defendant's new argument in the trial shall be the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to the corresponding part, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2.Nos. 14 and 20 of the first instance judgment shall add, in addition, the following:
4. On December 14, 2015, the Defendant determined on the Defendant’s application for the return of provisional payments, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 817,271,302 in total with the principal and delay damages indicated in the judgment of the first instance court of the provisional execution declaration book. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should return the remainder of the provisional payments exceeding the warranty bond duly recognized.
On December 14, 2015, the facts that the Plaintiff received KRW 817,271,302 from the Defendant on December 14, 2015 based on the declaration of provisional execution of the judgment of the first instance court do not conflict between the parties. As such, the Plaintiff is obliged to return the same to the Defendant only if there exists any part exceeding the warranty bond as above. As of December 14, 2015, the warranty bond that the Defendant, including the delay damages, paid to the Plaintiff including the delay damages, is clearly identical to the payment amount of the said provisional payment. Accordingly, the Defendant’s application for return of the provisional payment is without any justifiable reason further.
3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.