Of the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part of the contract deposit related to the second subcontract and the plaintiff.

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

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal on the part of the contract deposit amount related to the 1 and 3 construction subcontract in the holding of the court below, if there is a difference between the parties on the interpretation of a contract, and the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposal document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background of such agreement, the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065, May 27, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15816, Sept. 20, 2007). In cases where a contract is rescinded due to delay of performance, the peremptory notice of performance, which is the prerequisite of the premise, does not necessarily have to be clearly stated for a certain period in advance, and the right of rescission arises after a considerable period has elapsed from the peremptory notice.

In addition, if the obligor has notified the rescission of the contract on the ground of the obligor’s default, it may be deemed that there was a peremptory notice of performance unless it specifically includes the purport of rejecting the receipt of such performance, and if the obligor has not performed the contract within a reasonable time, the obligee may rescind the contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da35930 delivered on November 25, 1994, Supreme Court Decision 2002Da24942 delivered on August 27, 2002, etc.). Furthermore, the court determines whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity by free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the judgment below did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.