가. 인정사실 1) 원고는 2010. 6.경 피고가 주식회사 팰리즈(이하 ‘팰리즈’라 한다

(2) Of the construction works of the instant hospital on the ground and five parcels of land, 218-2, 218-2, and 5, the installation works of the instant hospital (hereinafter referred to as “instant hospital installation works”).

)를 공사대금 800,000,000원(부가가치세 별도)으로 정하여 재하도급받아 위 공사를 시행하였다. 2) 원고는 2011. 12.경 발주자인 팰리즈의 경영 악화로 인하여 이 사건 병원 설비공사를 중단하였다.

3) On March 16, 201, the Plaintiff received KRW 150,000,000 out of the construction cost as above from the Defendant. B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 205,755,000 to the time of suspending the instant hospital installation work, but only received KRW 150,000 out of the construction cost as above from the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 55,00,000 out of the remainder of the construction cost. C. 1) In the event the termination of the contract for the construction work is completed, barring any special circumstance, the repair of the building that has not been completed is based on the construction cost agreed between the parties to the contract and the contractor at the time of suspending the construction work, and is not based on the construction cost actually paid by the contractor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da42630, Mar. 31, 1992). Since the Plaintiff appears to have rescinded a contract prior to the discontinuance of construction work, it should be examined whether the amount exceeds KRW 150,000,000 that the Plaintiff received by the Plaintiff, by calculating the construction cost according to the construction completion rate at the time of discontinuance of construction work (it cannot be calculated on the basis of the construction cost actually paid, as alleged by the Plaintiff).

However, the evidence No. 5 (including the paper number) alone is insufficient to calculate the technical strength and ratio of the instant hospital facility works.