1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) part of Article 2-B-2 of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is used as described in Article 2-2(b) of the Civil Procedure Act; and (b) subsequent to paragraph (3) of Article 2-3 of the same Act, the part concerning the claims in the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that concerning the claims in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the part as described in

2. Parts used or added;

A. The Defendant asserts that since the instant construction contract was cancelled by agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff cannot claim damages against the Defendant.

In order to cancel an agreement formed by agreement between the parties, the requirement is that the opposite expression of intent, such as the offer and acceptance of the rescission contract, which would extinguish the validity of the existing contract, is consistent, as in the case of the formation of the contract. In order to establish such an agreement, the contents of intent as expressed by both parties should be objectively consistent.

In addition, the rescission of a contract may be impliedly made, but in order to have the contract terminated explicitly, the parties' intent not to realize the contract should be agreed upon due to the lack or renunciation of their intent to realize the contract after the formation of the contract. In case of partial performance of the contract, the intention of restitution should be agreed.

(2) In cases where a contract is rescinded or terminated by agreement, barring any other circumstance, such as a special agreement to compensate the other party for damages or a declaration of intent to withhold a claim for damages cannot be claimed, barring any other circumstance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da8755, Nov. 28, 2013). No. 13-1, and No. 13-1, respectively.