A. On April 2017, in order to operate the Smarket, the Plaintiff leased all the 1st underground floor E from the Non-Party D Co., Ltd.

B. (1) On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the manufacture and installation of stairs lifts for the marketing of goods from the first floor to the first floor underground for the opening of Schlage business.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant set up a stairs set up by July 10, 2017 in line with the opening date of Smarket, and the Plaintiff paid 18,000,000 won to the Defendant on May 19, 2017, and paid 7,641,00 won to the Defendant on the date of completion of installation.

C. On July 11, 2017, the Defendant drafted a written statement of performance under the following: (a) that the Plaintiff shall have the facilities and equipment installed on July 26, 2017 and complete the construction on July 29, 2017; (b) that the construction shall be completed by August 1, 2017; and (c) that the construction shall be completed by August 5, 2017; and (d) that the written statement of performance under the Civil and Criminal Liability Act, if the construction is completed by August 14, 2017 and fails to be performed by August 28, 2017.

On August 24, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the construction is suspended due to the fact that the content of a three-time statement of performance does not run, and that the contract would require the Defendant to reimburse the existing amount of payment, penalty, expense, and incidental expenses.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 17

2. Assertion and determination

A. In the instant case where the Plaintiff sought reimbursement or compensation of KRW 18,00,000, penalty of KRW 18,000,000, and labor cost of KRW 16,859,382 following the cancellation of the contract for work, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not install a stairs set at the wind of changing the design over several times.

B. (i) Whether cancellation of the contract is lawful may be acknowledged as having changed the design drawing on two occasions after the contract was entered into (Evidence Nos. 1 through 3). However, on the other hand, each of the statements set forth in Evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 16 are all the arguments.