1. The Defendant’s KRW 82,750,080 among the Plaintiff and KRW 72,250,080 among the Plaintiff, shall be KRW 10,50,000 from July 12, 2014.

1. Under the underlying facts, the following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, and evidence 6-1 to 4, Gap evidence 7-1, and 7-2.

The Plaintiff is a juristic person established for the purpose of real estate sale, lease, housing construction, etc., and the Defendant is a personal entrepreneur who carries on construction business under the trade name “B.”

B. On July 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a construction project to newly construct a wooden house on each of the instant construction projects (hereinafter “instant construction project”) on the Gyeonggi-si C and D ground. The key contents are as follows.

- The date of commencement: August 5, 2013 - the scheduled date of completion: September 30, 2013 - Contract Price: KRW 165,00,000 (excluding value-added tax of KRW 10%; hereinafter the same shall apply) - Payment of the construction cost for the completed project shall be made according to the progress of the project.

C. On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an additional construction contract (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant contract”) with the content that multiplescams shall be added to the instant construction work, and the contract amount was KRW 7,800,000.

The Plaintiff paid 156,300,000 won to the Defendant, at the Defendant’s request, as advance payment on the instant contract between October 18, 2013 and December 18, 2013.

E. After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant extended the deadline for completion of the instant construction to March 18, 2014, and the Defendant discontinued the instant construction without completing the construction before the said deadline for completion.

Accordingly, on March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rescission of the instant contract, and the above notification was delivered to the Defendant at that time.

2. Determination as to the claim for return of advance payment following the rescission of the instant contract

A. According to the above facts, the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the plaintiff's notice of contract rescission on the grounds of delay in performance of the defendant, and the defendant is the plaintiff.