1. In full view of the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the relocation of residents of G district was delayed due to the time when the instant contract was concluded, and that it was difficult to measure the time when the construction is resumed; that time suspension of construction works of G district was ordered without setting a deadline on October 23, 2008; that time suspension of construction works of G district was terminated on June 11, 2009; that is, the removal of G district was intended to carry out construction works of other district than G district; that the removal of construction works began around November 2010; that is, whether the construction work subject to the instant contract was suspended or not falls under important matters under the contract, with the construction cost, construction period, etc.; that it was recognized that the victim was not obliged to inform the victim of the fact that the construction work was suspended in principle and that it was not easy for the victim to know of the fact that the construction work was ordered to suspend construction works of G district without notifying the other party to the construction work of the fact that it would not be easily known.