The meaning of the arrangement to liquidate the construction cost when the building is sold;

An agreement to the effect that if a building is sold, it shall be interpreted that the payment period shall be postponed within a reasonable period necessary for the disposal of the building, and the period shall be three months after the completion of the construction.

Article 387 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Government Branch of Seoul District Court (75 Ghana313) in the first instance court

The original judgment shall be revoked.

Defendant 2 shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 with an annual interest rate of five percent from February 18, 1976 to the full payment system.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is dismissed.

Of the litigation costs, the costs incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant 2 shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the plaintiff and the defendant 1, and all the costs incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant 1.

This judgment may be provisionally executed on paragraph (2) of this Article.

The defendants shall jointly and severally pay the amount under Paragraph 2 of this Article to the plaintiff and bear the costs of lawsuit against the defendants.

The plaintiff's order Nos. 1 and 2, and defendant 1 shall seek a judgment as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 3, and paragraph 4.

First, on October 5, 1974, the Plaintiff’s claim portion against Defendant 2 was constructed by the Defendant under a contract for construction work with a housing construction cost of KRW 1,700,000, and completed the construction work on November 16 of the same year, and the remainder is not liquidated upon receiving only KRW 700,000 out of the above construction cost, as there is no dispute between the parties, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the construction work to the Plaintiff, barring any other circumstances.

However, the defendant's obligation to pay the remainder of the construction works is limited to the period after the sale of the above new building. The above new building was not yet disposed of, not only because the above new building was defective construction, and the wall of the above building was destroyed, and the roof was used for the building, and if the building is in conformity with the repair cost and the usage fee, the amount of the plaintiff's claim is exceeded. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is asserted to be unfair, and it can be viewed that the plaintiff used the building of this case without compensation according to the previous purport of the pleading. However, in light of the whole purport of the pleading, there is no evidence to prove that the building requires the repair cost and the building fee, and there is no reason to set off it against the defect repair cost and the building fee. If the building is sold, there is no dispute between the parties to the fact that the plaintiff agreed to liquidate the sale of the remaining construction works, but the purport of this is that the plaintiff's claim for the suspension of payment within a reasonable period of time.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the delay damages of the Civil Code at the rate of 5 percent per annum from February 18, 1976 to the full payment as the next day that the complaint delivered to the defendant, as the plaintiff's claim.

Next, although the plaintiff asserted that the above defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above defendant 2's obligation to pay the construction deposit to the plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is groundless.

Ultimately, unlike the conclusion of the present claim, the original judgment which accepted the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 and dismissed the claim against the defendant 2 is unfair, and since the appeal against the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is well-grounded, all of them are revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 is dismissed, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is accepted, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant 2, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judges Shin Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)