Of the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant, the part of the claim for payment of money subrogated to B Co., Ltd. is reversed.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined. A.

(1) As to the grounds of appeal on the royalty rate and the remuneration therefor (1) The lower court determined that, on April 23, 2008, the Defendant: (a) notified the instant contract to the Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B Co-Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”); (b) but, on December 17, 2008, the instant contract was lawfully rescinded; (c) where the restoration to the original state was significant social and economic losses, and the completed portion becomes a benefit to the contractor, even if the contractor cancels the contract, the contractor may claim reasonable remuneration in consideration of the remaining portion of the contract and the completion of the building. In other cases, the first instance Co-Defendant E stated that the Defendant’s process of new construction at the time of the instant contract was 70% higher; and (d) in light of the fact that the construction work at issue was newly constructed on April 23, 2008, the construction owner was 60% higher than that at the time of the instant contract’s new construction; and (e) the Defendant was 940% higher than that at the instant contract was cancelled.

(2) The above determination by the court below cannot be accepted.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, ① the co-defendant D (hereinafter “D”) andO of the original owner of the instant building are Co-Defendant D (hereinafter “AC”) and AC Co., Ltd.