beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the judgment was accepted as follows, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
【The 6th b) The part of the 6th b) shall be dried as follows.
Examining the following circumstances, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the statements stated in Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, and 6, and witness I’s witness I’s testimony, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay construction costs to the Plaintiff, the subcontractor, in accordance with the agreement on July 23, 2012 on the payment of construction costs and the confirmation of the conditions for physical payment as of July 27, 2012, and that there was an agreement on the payment of part of the building in this case to pay the construction costs directly to the Plaintiff, the subcontractor, and that there was an agreement on the payment of part of the building in this case for the said payment. ① The Eul renounced the profits under the instant contract with the Defendant on July 2, 2012, and the Defendant consented to the payment of construction costs and profits directly to the subcontractor, and the Defendant agreed to the payment of construction costs and profits directly from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
(2) According to the settlement agreement of this case, the Defendant paid the amount of KRW 580,729,921 to B (=the amount equivalent to KRW 240,729,921 for general management expenses of KRW 340,00,000 for construction deposit). The terms and conditions of the substitute payment written by the Defendant on July 27, 2012 set the amount of the substitute payment to the Plaintiff as KRW 737,756,456 for the Plaintiff’s stores as KRW 403 out of the building in this case.
③ A written agreement on the payment of construction expenses as of July 23, 2012; the Defendant’s “person who receives a substitute payment” in a certificate of the terms and conditions of the substitute payment drawn up on July 27, 2012; and the commercial building supply contract drawn up on July 30, 2012.