On May 12, 2015, the Plaintiff (i.e., the Plaintiff) entrusted the Defendant with the development of the web (hereinafter referred to as the “development of this case”) on the mother date available for bulletin board, and entered into a service contract between the original Defendant and the Defendant and the Elimo-son Co., Ltd., a brokerage management company (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”), and the part relating to the instant case in the attached Form.

2. The description;

The Defendant sent the design time bill to the Plaintiff on July 2, 2015, and notified the progress of the planning on August 10, 2015, but the same year.

9. From February 1, 200, the Plaintiff asked the Plaintiff’s demand to understand that the crowdfunding work is in progress, and on October 21, 2015, the original file claiming the outcome of the work was sent by e-mail.

[Ground] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the judgment of the compensation for delay as a whole, and the plaintiff's assertion on the part of the compensation for delay, the Defendant did not complete the development of the instant case by June 5, 2015 (the date 25 days have elapsed from May 12, 2015 to October 18, 2016), which is the contract term, pursuant to Article 6 of the instant contract, and thus, paid KRW 5,636,00 for delay from June 6, 2015 to October 18, 2016.

Judgment

According to the above facts, since the defendant can be found to have failed to complete the development of this case within the contract period, the defendant is obligated to pay compensation for delay to the plaintiff. However, the completion period of compensation for delay is the time when the contractor could cancel the contract due to the suspension of construction or other reasons for cancellation (not the time the contract was cancelled in reality) and the contractor could request another contractor to complete the same building.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da14846, Oct. 12, 199). In this case, according to the above facts of recognition, when the plaintiff could have terminated the contract of this case, the plaintiff shall continue to implement the contract of this case at least.