1. The part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 27, 2017, B represented the Plaintiff prepared a construction contract agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) between C and C, representing the Defendant, with respect to the construction work for the construction of two units of detached houses and two units of land (hereinafter “instant construction work”) outside Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, with respect to the construction work cost of KRW 217,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period of April 1, 2017 to July 17, 2017.

The instant contract included an agreement on the payment of the construction amount, such as the attached Form.

B. On March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 5 million on March 27, 2017, and paid KRW 50 million on March 31, 2017, and KRW 40 million on April 18, 2017, respectively.

C. The instant construction project performed entirely after entering into a contract with the Defendant under the name of the Defendant.

E demanded the Plaintiff to pay additional KRW 40 million on May 2017, but the Plaintiff refused to do so, and the construction was suspended on May 7, 2017 when only the construction of the 1st floor and the 2nd floor was completed.

On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant contract will be rescinded, and filed the instant lawsuit on the same day.

After that, the Plaintiff completed the remaining construction work from June 6, 2017 to August 20, 2017 through another construction business operator or directly.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry and video of Nos. 1-11 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant contract was rescinded due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation even when the structural construction was not completed. Of KRW 95 million that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff, the amount actually invested in the instant construction is merely the amount of KRW 59 million.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant contract does not exist, and the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million equivalent to the second progress payment, which was to be paid for the creative and internal surveillance of the advance payment, as unjust enrichment.

Defendant.