1. The reasons for this part of the facts admitted are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The grounds for this part of the judgment on the principal lawsuit are as follows: “The building of this case” in Section 14 of Section 4 of the judgment of the first instance to Section 18 of the same page from the “building of this case” to the “building of this case,” the construction of septic tanks, toilets, and water pipes (hereinafter “instant additional construction”) was contracted and completed on December 27, 2014, and the construction was completed on December 27, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 34,518,000 required for the said additional construction and delay damages therefor,” and “32,093,699 won” in Section 15 of Section 6 of the judgment of the first instance to the “34,518,000 won,” and it is identical to the judgment of the first instance, and this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. Although the gist of the counterclaim claim is 48.28% of the amount paid for the portion which the Plaintiff had executed in accordance with the construction contract of the instant case, and the amount of the completed portion is 38,05,000 won, the Defendant already paid the Plaintiff KRW 75,80,000 in excess of the amount according to the said period of contract as the construction price, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to return the amount of 37,745,000 won (=75,800,000 won-38,05,000 won) as unjust enrichment to the Defendant.

B. (1) Determination (1) The Plaintiff’s suspension of each of the instant construction works around January 12, 2015, and accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the contract on January 20, 2015 is as seen earlier. As such, each of the instant construction contracts was terminated around that time due to the Plaintiff’s delay of performance and refusal of performance.

As to this, the Plaintiff’s obstruction of construction was suspended until November 27, 2014 due to the Defendant’s obstruction of construction, and the Defendant settled the construction cost after receiving a contract from the Defendant for the instant additional construction work, and completed it on December 24, 2014.