1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,948,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from April 30, 2016 to January 24, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new house for electric power generation (hereinafter “instant house”) located in Seocheon-si C (hereinafter “instant construction”) with respect to the construction of a new house (hereinafter “instant construction”) under the following terms (hereinafter “instant contract”), and continued the construction of a new house.

construction cost of approximately 20 square meters (to be borne by the plaintiff as a design cost by design drawing): 112,50,000 won special agreement: All the expenses for changing the form and quality of the building cost and all all all all the expenses shall be paid by the defendant: 60% if the roof of the above object is known without the deadline, and 40% shall be paid at the time of occupancy.

B. On January 29, 2016, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail stating that the Plaintiff would rescind the instant contract on the ground that the Plaintiff did not properly perform the instant construction work, and reached the Plaintiff around that time. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a reply to demand that the Defendant pay KRW 55,40,000,000 to the Defendant for the construction cost based on the work period.

C. Before the Plaintiff’s discontinuance of the instant construction work, the amount of money that the Plaintiff started is KRW 48,948,00,000, and the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff as the price for construction work under the instant contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1, each entry and video of Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the court's entrustment of appraisal to appraiser D, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Defendant, a contractor, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money for the construction of this case performed by the Plaintiff before the contract of this case is rescinded. 2) The instant housing constructed by the Defendant cannot be deemed as benefit to the Defendant, the contractor, and the restitution does not cause significant social and economic loss. Therefore, the instant contract of this case is rescinded retroactively.