1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In order to perform the construction of long-term middle school multi-purpose lecture ordered by the Office of Education of Sejong Special Self-Governing City, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant by setting the total construction cost of KRW 80,300,00 (including value-added tax) with respect to the part of roof, home line, metal, windows, and glass (hereinafter “instant construction”) as KRW 80,300,000, and upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant on June 11, 2014, and KRW 25,00,000 on July 25, 2014, and KRW 10,000 among the total construction works. However, the Defendant suspended the construction works with limited construction works equivalent to approximately 10%.

Accordingly, on August 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the subcontract and paid approximately KRW 40,000,000 to the special case, and completed the subcontracted work.

As the whole construction has been delayed due to the discontinuance of construction by the defendant, the plaintiff has paid 112,83,070 won to the Office of Education of Sejong Special Self-Governing City.

Therefore, the defendant shall return to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 37,00,000 (=45,00,000 - 8,000,000 - 8,000,000) equivalent to the portion for which the defendant had not performed the construction work among the total construction cost of the case that the plaintiff had already paid to the plaintiff, and ② the penalty for delay incurred by the defendant 54,117,000 x 859,00,000 x 1/1000 for delay per day x 63 days for delay of construction (from August 6, 2014 to October 8, 2014).

2. As to the claim for the return of the construction cost, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant continued to suspend only 10% of the construction cost of the instant case (the amount equivalent to KRW 8,00,000), but it is insufficient to accept the claim in full view of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the return of money corresponding to the portion that the defendant did not proceed on the premise that the defendant was carrying out only 10% construction work cannot be accepted.

With respect to claims for delay, the Corporation has been delayed due to the health unit and the defendant.