A. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, an architect, for construction and sale of urban-type residential housing of the size of 8,074.02 square meters of underground floors and 20 square meters of land surface in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, with the construction period of KRW 115,00,000 (Additional Tax Table) (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). The written contract states to the effect that construction cost shall be paid by 50% upon commencement and 50% upon completion of construction work.

On the other hand, around December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the design work for the construction of the above urban residential housing as the price of KRW 170,940,000 (including value-added tax).

B. On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the building of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 1st floor (hereinafter “instant building”) from a Sung Enterprise Co., Ltd. for three months for the purpose of sampling construction, and paid KRW 48,000,000 for three months for the same day.

The plaintiff and Sung-gu Co., Ltd. delivered the building of this case to the court prior to the filing of the lawsuit on the lease of this case, and set the term of lease for three months from that time.

C. On January 13, 2014, after the Plaintiff prepared a notarized letter on the lease agreement of the instant building, the Defendant decided to start sampling construction from the instant building to complete the construction by February 13, 2014. On February 6, 2014, the construction was suspended on the ground of the unpaid payment.

The plaintiff did not pay the work price to the defendant until the work is discontinued.

The plaintiff demanded the defendant to complete the construction due to the problems such as the lease period, and the defendant tried to reject it to complete the construction work to a third party. However, the defendant did not have any progress in the state where the construction work was interrupted by asserting the lien on the ground of the claim for construction cost

On the other hand, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the pertinent design contract on March 11, 2014.

(e).