1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. Expenses for filing an appeal, and those for filing an application for the return of provisional payments.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Plaintiff" in the second 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance was changed to "A corporation (A corporation was decided on March 20, 2015, and the plaintiff was regarded as the administrator; the plaintiff received a lawsuit against A corporation in the trial; hereinafter the same shall apply)"; in the sixth 15th part of the first 15th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 711 (the defendant did not recognize only part of the progress payment recognized by the plaintiff as progress payment, which was omitted by the plaintiff as progress payment for public construction (the defendant asserts that the above amount was 362,915,290 won in the reference document of May 7, 2015, which is equivalent to the failure to pay the above amount, and thus, the plaintiff is considered as the administrator, and there is no further assertion that the defendant's additional payment should be appropriated for advance payment."

2. As seen above, the Defendant’s argument cannot be accepted as to the application for the return of provisional payments, and the conclusion of the first instance court is maintained as is. Thus, the Defendant’s application for the return of provisional payments cannot be accepted without need to further examine.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.