(a) KRW 126,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 28, 2015 to December 1, 2015; and

A. Around September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a construction contract with the content that the Defendant newly constructed a second-story housing unit (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of Ydo-gun C (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) at the cost of KRW 140,000,000 from December 23, 2014.

(A) Evidence No. 1). (b)

Upon entering into the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to substitute for the payment of downpayment and intermediate payment of KRW 86,000,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant or the person designated by the Defendant from June 14, 2014 to September 5, 2014, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid the construction price of KRW 126,00,000 (=86,000,000 + + KRW 10,000 + KRW 30,0000 + KRW 30,000 on October 21, 2014, and KRW 30,000 on November 14, 2014 to the Defendant at that time by additionally paying the construction price of KRW 126,00,00 (=86,000 + 10,000 +30,000 +0,000).

(No. 3 1 through 7). (c)

However, the Defendant suspended construction and failed to complete the instant building by December 2014, which was the initial construction period, and delayed payment to a large number of sewage supply businesses.

(A) Evidence No. 4, A No. 5, 123). D.

On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the remainder of the construction cost already paid, claiming that the contract for the instant construction work was rescinded on the grounds that the construction had not been completed despite the lapse of the construction period agreed upon to the Defendant and the considerable portion of the construction cost had been paid, and that the return of the remainder after deducting the amount calculated according to the rate

(A) evidence 6.e.

Even after notification by the Plaintiff on January 27, 2015, the construction of the instant building was suspended continuously, and the height and proportion of the instant building was determined as 65.9% (as of March 2015).

F. However, although the site of the instant building consists of earth and sand not solid base, there was a possibility that the Defendant could change the structure due to ground subsidence, not cement brick, which constructed the lower part of the right side into reinforced concrete.