1. The Defendant’s KRW 90,919,078 to the Plaintiff and its related KRW 6% per annum from November 10, 2014 to December 9, 2016.

Basic Facts

On August 8, 2008, the Plaintiff, a housing constructor, entered into a contract with the Defendant on the following terms: (a) within three months after the date of completion of the construction; (b) KRW 340 million for the construction work; (c) KRW 100 million for the construction work; and (d) the remainder of KRW 240,000 for the construction work after completion of the construction completion; and (e) the construction cost to be paid each after completion of the construction (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”).

Around January 2009, the Plaintiff completed the structural construction of the instant multi-household construction (hereinafter referred to as the “alley construction”) from among the instant multi-household construction, and subsequently suspended construction around September 2009 while performing part of the interior construction.

On April 12, 2010, the Defendant made a successive contract to D and E for the remainder of the instant multi-household construction, and completed two multi-household houses (hereinafter “multi-household houses”) around June 201.

[Ground of appeal] The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff did not dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5 through 8, Eul 1, 3, and 4 (including a serial number, and hereinafter the same shall apply)'s each statement, witness F, and D's testimony, and the purport of the whole oral argument, and the plaintiff's ground of appeal as to the plaintiff's ground of appeal. After completion of the multi-household construction of this case, the plaintiff agreed another construction as additional contract period, and entered into the contract of this case with a half of the actual construction cost.

However, since the multi-household construction of this case was suspended due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the full amount of the construction cost actually paid by the plaintiff, not the amount applied to the agreed construction cost.

Therefore, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 210,511,244, which deducts KRW 52,00,000 from the construction cost actually paid by the Plaintiff against the Defendant from KRW 262,51,244.

Judgment

The contractor's contract for construction work is rescinded without completion of the construction work.