The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the same part as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows.

The defendant's "Defendant" in the 3rd page shall be changed to "Plaintiff".

The 4 to 7 degrees at the bottom of the 6th parallel of the 6th parallel of the earth shall be as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

C. 1) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the period of the delayed payment is equal to the period during which the construction work is to be paid, and as such, in ordinary construction contract, the period during which the delay is to be paid is equal to the period during which the construction work is to be paid. Thus, the Defendant’s claim for the delayed payment, which is the date following the date on which the factory of this case was delivered to the Plaintiff, occurs as a requirement for delay, and if the delay continues, the delayed payment is determined by the number of days during which the delay is to be paid, each claim for the delayed payment should be established for each day (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da16831, Apr. 10, 201). Since the damage claim arising from the nonperformance, such as the claim for the delayed payment, such as the claim for the delayed payment, can be claimed at any time after the due date was established, the period during which the obligor has delayed performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da16831, Aug. 30, 196).

(See Supreme Court Decision 81Meu10, Dec. 22, 1981). The subject matter completed under Article 665(1) of the Civil Act is related to the obligation for delay from the day following the delivery of the subject matter.