The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2017, the Plaintiff awarded a contract to the Defendant for construction works for substantial repair and extension of housing located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction works”), including design around July 2017, and paid KRW 2,400,000 as design expenses on July 24, 2017.

B. On August 7, 2017, the Plaintiff opened a self-reliance deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant account”) and deposited KRW 117,600,000 in the said account, and issued a passbook and a check card to the Defendant, and notified the password.

C. Upon receipt of the Defendant’s instructions, C withdrawn KRW 116,590,000 from the instant account on August 7, 2017, and KRW 30,000 on September 25, 2017, and KRW 31,590,000 on September 27, 2017, respectively, and used KRW 116,590,000.

On September 2017, the Defendant started construction work and continued construction work until November 2017. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay the construction cost and suspended construction work.

Meanwhile, it was revealed that the construction was conducted after only completion of the extension report even though the construction was a large-scale repair and extension project, and the head of Seodaemun-gu imposed a charge for compelling the performance on the Plaintiff. On May 14, 2018, the construction was registered as a non-compliant building on the

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 7 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant unilaterally suspended the instant construction work and expressed that the Plaintiff did not intend to undertake the instant construction work any longer after unilaterally suspending the construction work while omitting a large-scale repair report on the instant construction work and demanding the Plaintiff to pay additional construction cost.

The Plaintiff, as seen above, rescinded the construction contract of this case by serving a duplicate of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the instant case on the ground that the construction was suspended due to the Defendant’s fault.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.