1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the lawsuit against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the principal lawsuit is revoked, and that part constitutes the revoked part.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 4 to 7.6 pages below the second judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment regarding the defense prior to the merits is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 7th to 8th 17th e.g., the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The summary of the party's assertion (1) The Plaintiff Corporation is delayed due to ① the Defendant's non-compensation for the relocation of the land, etc. prior to the obstruction, ② non-execution of the design modification, ③ non-approval of the actual report, etc., and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay for the delay of the instant construction

In this regard, the defendant's notification of the termination of the construction contract of this case was based on the plaintiff's assumption of the plaintiff's duty to return, and thus, the plaintiff would rather terminate the construction contract of this case on the ground of the defendant

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost according to the ratio of the fixed price, the additional construction cost due to the actual report, the fixed amount of the contract price due to price fluctuations, and the damages equivalent to the performance profit.

(2) The instant construction contract was lawfully terminated by the Defendant’s notice of termination on the ground of the Plaintiff’s non-performance of the contract, such as the occurrence of a delayed prize due to the delay of construction due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and the non-performance of the contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has a duty to pay the delayed prize to the Defendant according to the ratio stipulated in the instant construction contract, and the Defendant offsets the above delayed prize claims against the Plaintiff’s claims for construction payment, etc., and at the same time, seeks the payment of the difference as a counterclaim.

B. The reasons for this Court’s determination with respect to the reasons for attributable to the construction site are as follows.