1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

Defendant B.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court

2. Parts used or added;

A. From 10th to 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the first-class 14th to 11th is as follows.

In a case where it is reasonable to deem that, in the case of a juristic act attached to an additional official, if the fact indicated in the additional official does not occur, it shall be deemed as a condition that the obligation should not be performed. In a case where it is reasonable to deem that the occurrence of the indicated fact should be performed not only when the indicated fact occurred, but also when it has become final and conclusive even when the objection has not occurred, it shall be deemed as a definite time limit to determine whether the occurrence of the indicated fact has become final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24215, Aug. 19, 2003). In this case, the facts indicated in the above additional official seal (in a case where the payment of the construction price was made by the Defendant Company for each process from the buyer M as well as when it was confirmed that the occurrence of the construction work occurred, as well as when it was done under the basic contract of this case, the Defendant Company should pay

Therefore, even in cases where the defendant company received the first intermediate payment from M or becomes final and conclusive to the contrary that the above fact did not occur, the above indefinite period shall arrive, and the defendant company shall pay the plaintiff the first installment payment as stipulated in the basic contract of this case.

However, the following facts and circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of evidence Nos. 5 and 8, namely, the Plaintiff’s first intermediate payment on G Building N to M and Defendant Company on August 21, 2017.