1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. According to the expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the defendant shall pay 30,510,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment regarding the claim for rent and the claim for fee based on the statement of non-performance of official duties are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act: (a) the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance read “K” as “H”; and (b) the fourth part of the judgment as “L” as “I”; and (c) the same applies to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The claim for rent and the claim for the amount of transfer money based on the written consent to the revocation of the additional determination is premised on the existence of both H’s claim for payment for completed portion against the Defendant.

On February 19, 2016, H testified that “The amount of progress payment that he/she should receive from the Defendant at the time of preparing a written statement of non-performance on February 19, 2016 was KRW 100 million or KRW 150 million,” and that “the percentage of progress payment was 90% or KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).”

On the other hand, H testified that “I cannot accurately memory the progress payment to be received from the Defendant, and the reason is that the personnel expenses and the restaurant problems of the relevant companies are combined.”

In addition, if H remains the progress payment to be received from the Defendant, H suspended the construction of reinforced concrete, and thereafter requested the Defendant to pay the progress payment, and there is no objective evidence to support this.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the above testimony of H alone had a claim for the progress payment against the Defendant of H.

A claim for rent and a claim for the amount of money received based on a written statement of refusal to pay shall not be accepted.

3. Determination as to the claim for rent

A. After the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion ceased construction of reinforced concrete around February 2016, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to directly operate the instant construction, and the Plaintiff issued an order for a pipe and safety plate at 1m for two months.