1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 26, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on May 26, 2012, with the terms that the Defendant established one mobile-prefabricated-type shop building consisting of reinforced concrete C (hereinafter “instant building”) on the rooftop, Chuncheon-si, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff, and entered into a contract with the Defendant for up to June 23, 2012, with the size of 14 square meters, the construction cost of KRW 29,00,000 (only in addition), and the construction period of KRW 14 square meters (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On July 19, 2012, the Defendant, among the rooftops of the instant building, installed a mobile assembly-type shop house (hereinafter “instant assembly house”) on the ground of 23.5 square meters on the ship connecting each point of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 5, in sequence, among the instant building’s rooftops, and received KRW 31,310,000 in total from the Plaintiff as the installation cost under the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, result of appraiser D's survey and appraisal, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The size of the instant prefabricated Housing built by the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff is limited to approximately 23.5 square meters, which is a half of the size of 14 square meters under the instant contract, and the date of completion of the production and installation of the prefabricated Housing under the instant contract on June 23, 2012, the Defendant completed installation on July 19, 2012.

In addition, there are defects such as ① wall cracks, floor falls, ② water leakages of toilets, ③ fall short of the garment area, ④ installation of a front tank, ⑤ Construction of a main floor and a garrising room, ⑤ Construction of a garrising room, and 6th roof water leakages.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s rescission of the instant contract is impossible to achieve the purpose of the instant contract due to the foregoing reasons, the Defendant removed the instant assembly house to restore the Plaintiff to its original state, and returned KRW 31,310,000 to the Plaintiff construction cost, and KRW 18,800,000 in total as compensation for damages incurred in the process of building the instant assembly house, = the cost of waterproof and repair construction due to the rooftop scrap hole.