1. The main part of the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract with the Plaintiff, setting the construction cost of KRW 484,00,000 for the new construction of multi-family houses in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) from March 6, 2017 to August 15, 2017; and (c) as 20% of the advance payment contract price.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). B.

The contract of this case provides for the termination of the contract of this case as follows.

C. On July 25, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “The completion of 95% of the air by August 5, 2017 shall be completed, and if not, it shall be terminated pursuant to Article 31(1)2 of the instant Construction Contract.”

On August 5, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant construction contract was terminated on the ground that the fairness rate falls short of 60%.

hereinafter referred to as "the termination of the contract of this case"

(D) Since then, the Plaintiff was excluded from the construction, and the Plaintiff filed an application for approval for use of new buildings on February 12, 2018 after the completion and resumption of construction on the part of the Defendant’s side. [Grounds for recognition] of the absence of dispute, Gap’s 1 and 2 evidence (including the number of pages), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff, as to the lawfulness of the main claim part of the instant lawsuit, is due to the peculiarity of the field, civil petition filing and construction obstruction of neighboring residents, and thus, the Plaintiff’s rescission of the instant construction contract on the ground that the cause attributable to the Plaintiff is unreasonable and invalid.

On the other hand, since the construction of this case has already been completed, seeking confirmation of invalidity of termination of the contract of this case is sought for confirmation of absence of past legal relations, and there is no evidence to recognize that obtaining a judgment of confirmation of the legal relations is valid and appropriate in order to eliminate risks or apprehensions with respect to the present rights or legal status of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no benefit of confirmation.