1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of cutting, deleting, or adding, as follows, and thus, it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used for cutting, deleting, or adding them;

A. Of the judgment of the first instance, the second and third instances of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance judgment “ December 29, 2008.12.3”; and “ November 9, 201.” in the seventh and second instances of the said first instance judgment “ November 9, 201,” respectively, shall be written as “ November 9, 2010.”

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant deleted the “the Defendant issued the above written review opinion to F,” which was first and second of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(c) Of the judgment of the first instance court, the following additions are made in accordance with paragraph 21 of the 10th sentence:

“The Defendant asserts that “The payment shall be made within one month from the date on which the approval for alteration of the construction design was obtained with the approval for alteration of the construction design from the approval for alteration of the construction design submitted to the Geumcheon-gu Office” under Article 2(2) of the Contract No. 3. 1 and 2 refers to the obligation of the Plaintiff or H to pay the remainder of the contract No. 1 and 2, not the due date for the payment of the balance (see preparatory documents of July 3, 2017). The interpretation of legal act clearly establishes the objective meaning the parties assigned to the act of expression. If the interpretation of the parties’ intent indicated in the contract document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da225809, Jun. 22, 2017).