beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Judgment on ground of appeal No. 1
A. The so-called advance payment, which is received from a construction contract, provides the contractor with the payment of the construction cost in advance in order to ensure the smooth progress of the construction work without difficulty in the payment of materials and wages. In light of the above, the contractor’s payment of the construction cost is not the construction cost paid in relation to the specific period, but the construction cost paid in relation to the entire construction project. In light of the above, if there is a reason for the contractor to return the advance payment in advance due to the cancellation or termination of the contract after the advance payment was made, barring any special circumstance, the unpaid amount of the construction cost equivalent to the advance payment up to the time of the cancellation or termination shall be appropriated as the advance payment, and the contractor bears the obligation to pay only the remainder of the construction cost.
In this case, how to determine the details of the contract price for the work subject to an advance payment shall be in accordance with the agreement between the parties to the contract, and when the contractor concludes an exceptional settlement agreement to exclude the amount equivalent to the payment of the subcontract price from the details of the work price for the work subject to an advance payment where the reasons for the contractor directly pays the subcontract price arise, the contractor cannot be exempted from the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the subcontractor on the ground that the advance payment was appropriated for the work price
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214437, Jan. 23, 2014). In the case of a guarantee contract for advance payment, the determination of the occurrence and scope of the cause for the payment of the deposit should be based on the contents of the subcontract that is the subject of the relevant guarantee.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da69713, Jun. 10, 2004). Meanwhile, the content of a standardized contract is either the intent or specific of an individual contractor.