The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the claim of lien

A. In light of the fact that a contractor’s claim for the construction price of a contractor for a defect repair or damage claim in lieu of a defect repair of a contractor, and the purport that the period of payment of secured claim is stipulated as the requirements for establishing a lien, etc., if the contractor completed the construction in a newly constructed construction contract, even if the contractor, because the building defects exist in the newly constructed building and the amount corresponding to such defects and damages exceeds the remainder of the construction cost, and the contractor has asserted simultaneous performance of the contractor’s claim for the whole remainder of the construction cost based on the defect repair claim or damage claim in lieu of a defect repair, etc., the contractor cannot exercise a lien based on the remainder of the construction cost claim unless the contractor provides the contractor with the performance of the obligation to repair the defect or the obligation to compensate for the defect in lieu

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da30653 Decided January 16, 2014). B.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court, and the lower court, knowing that it is difficult to recognize the additional construction cost claim of KRW 52,653,000,000 in addition to the contract amount as stated in the lower judgment, since the Defendant, the representative director of the E, as stated in the lower judgment, did not perform the additional construction work according to the instruction of the victimized company as stated in the lower judgment, and thus, it was difficult to recognize the additional construction cost claim of KRW 52,653,000,000, out of the total construction cost of KRW 210,325,000, which the victimized company is obligated to pay to E, was prepared and delivered to the said subcontractor a “written consent to direct payment of the subcontract price” with the content that the victimized company