A. On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of a child care center (hereinafter “instant contract”) on the land (hereinafter “instant construction”) between the Defendant and the ASEAN-si, and the construction period of KRW 2,000,000,000, and the construction period from September 3, 2013 to January 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant contract”). According to the instant contract, the construction cost shall be paid according to the nature of the contract, and the remainder of the construction cost shall be paid KRW 500,000,000 within two months after completion, and the remainder of the construction cost shall be paid within five months.

B. The Defendant continued the instant construction in accordance with the instant contract, and the Defendant failed to complete the instant construction by January 31, 2014, which is the date of completion of the instant construction.

C. On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) the remainder of the construction work in this case was KRW 632,50,000; (b) among them, KRW 200,000 until April 15, 2014, KRW 240,000 until May 30, 2014; (c) the Plaintiff prepared and issued a written confirmation of the remainder of the construction contract with the intent to pay KRW 192,50,000 until July 30, 2014; and (d) a notary public prepared and issued a notarized deed of debt repayment (quasi-loan) agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed”) containing the said written confirmation as a document No. 557 of 2014’s mission.

Around April 2014, the Defendant suspended construction without completion of the instant construction, and subsequently completed the construction at the construction site of this case, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant contract by delivery of a preparatory document as of July 25, 2014, and the said preparatory document was served on the Defendant on July 28, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 31 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of this case is related to this case's notarial deed prepared by the plaintiff's mission as a legal representative.