A. The Plaintiff is a construction business entity that reconstructed the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C lending (hereinafter “the instant lending”), and the Defendant is the owner of the instant lending 402 after reconstruction, who was the owner of the instant lending 202 (the ground floor 2) prior to reconstruction.

B. The head of the instant loan was composed of six households in total with the 6th floor, the 1st floor, and the 2nd floor before reconstruction. However, around April 2012, the head of the instant loan, including the Defendant, entered into a construction contract with the Plaintiff on the construction that, around that time, the head of the instant loan and the Plaintiff, “the head of the household shall be awarded a contract for the reconstruction work with the Plaintiff with the amount of 412,54,000 won prior to reconstruction including the Defendant, while the head of the household shall be awarded a contract for the reconstruction work with the Plaintiff with the amount of 48,757,333 won per household (hereinafter referred to as “the instant reconstruction contract”) and the construction work thereunder.

[The loan of this case was reconstructed with 120,54,00 won for the previous householder and 292,54,000 won for the remainder of the construction cost (i.e., 412,54,000 won - 120,000 won for - 120,000 won for each household) as agreed that the above householder will share equally among the two stories, 3 stories, 2 households of 4 stories, 5 stories, and 15 stories of 5 stories of 5 stories of 5 stories of 5 stories of 5 stories of 5 stories of 5 stories of 4 stories of this case. The plaintiff and the head of 5 stories of the loan of this case have been assigned to the existing householder of the construction cost before re-building.] (c)

The Defendant’s mother, upon receiving the consent to re-building from the householder of the instant loan prior to re-building, played an active role in the prompt progress of re-building of the instant loan, such as a front letter in resolving the migration problems of the tenants.

On August 2012, the Plaintiff started the instant reconstruction work and completed the construction of the first patrol officer on February 2013. Accordingly, the Defendant on February 5, 2013.