1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 3,00.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the part concerning the defendant in the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 2, 12, 12, and 3, and 12). Thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 51,612,655 and delay damages within the scope of the claim for the construction payment against the Defendant, which is the collection claim, at least 84,579,800 won (i.e., the construction payment of KRW 520,000,000) - the settlement amount of KRW 435,420,200 as of September 27, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 51,612,655 and the delay damages therefrom within the scope of the claim. (ii) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of KRW 30,00,000,000, excluding the agreed amount of KRW 30,000,000 as of April 22, 2014.

3) Preliminaryly, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 38,340,200 to the Plaintiff according to the settlement made by September 27, 2014 with D. (B) Defendant 1 paid the construction cost according to the nature and nature of D, and rather, there are only damage claims and liquidated damages claims for D’s defect repair.

2) On April 22, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 27,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the agreed amount according to the payment note issued by the Plaintiff on April 22, 2014. Of the part executed by the Plaintiff, the sum of the Defendant’s construction costs on behalf of the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 3,00,000. 3) The settlement made between the Defendant and D on September 27, 2014 is merely between the Defendant and D, and the Defendant did not have agreed to pay KRW 38,340,200 to the Plaintiff. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit to determine the claim for collection, the existence of the claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40476 Decided June 11, 2015, etc.). D and the Defendant enter into a neighborhood living facility and a new housing construction contract on September 6, 2013.