1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff contracted the Defendant with the manufacture and installation construction of the elevator, and paid the construction cost of KRW 27,610,000, and that the contract was cancelled due to the Defendant’s delay and defects making it impossible to use the elevator properly.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the construction cost of KRW 27,610,00 to the Plaintiff and pay KRW 14,30,000,00 in total (the estimated revenue amount of building rents from September 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014, which was completed from September 30, 2013, and the construction cost of KRW 13,80,000 (the management fee paid to the construction site manager from February 28, 2014 to June 26, 2014, which was the scheduled date of completion) as compensation for damages.

B. The contracting party who was awarded a contract for the installation of an elevator from the Plaintiff’s assertion is not C, and the Defendant is not the Defendant, and the Defendant is not obligated to perform its obligations

In addition, the defendant has not been paid part of the price after receiving a subcontract from C and completing work.

The delay of construction is caused by the plaintiff's cause of fault.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, and 1 of the evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 1, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s husband”) was running the construction of a multi-family house at around 2013, together with the construction of an elevator necessary for the relevant house (hereinafter “the instant elevator construction work”). ② The Defendant was a person operating a mutual intent company called “D” and submitted a quotation (the construction cost of KRW 24,750,00) at the Plaintiff’s request on April 10, 2013, and continued to operate the elevator construction work; ③ the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million in total with the financial account of the Defendant or E (the Defendant’s husband’s husband) from June 4, 2013 to July 2, 2014; ④ the Defendant issued a tax invoice for value-added tax to the Plaintiff and can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff received money under the name of the value-added tax.

On the other hand, however, Gap.