1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) contracted the “Ebuilding Construction Work” on the ground of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, and, on December 27, 2013, concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on December 27, 2013, with the cost of construction work KRW 921,602,00 (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the construction period from December 30, 2013 to July 31, 2014.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff is proceeding with construction work under the instant construction contract.

On August 10, 2014, C discontinued construction works. On August 11, 2014, C notified the Defendant that “The instant construction contract shall be terminated on the grounds that documents related to the change of the contract period were not submitted, wages are overdue, air delay, failure to use advance payments, failure to submit on-site agents, false report, etc.”

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff spent KRW 715,630,721 as construction cost in relation to the instant construction project, the Defendant paid only KRW 470,776,00 as construction cost to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 244,854,721, which remains after deducting the amount paid by the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s amount of the said construction cost, as construction cost. Of them, the Defendant seeks payment of KRW 100,00,000 and delay damages.

B. Determination 1) In the event that a construction contract is rescinded or terminated due to a contractor’s default, the remuneration to be paid by the contractor shall be governed by the circumstances where there are special circumstances, such as the existence of an agreement on remuneration for the part of the contract, and barring such circumstances, the amount applying the rate of time and time to the total construction cost agreed between the parties is not the standard for the expenses actually paid by the contractor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da11574, 11581, Jan. 12, 2017).