1.The part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for adding "the results of fact inquiry into appraiser F of the first instance trial" to the column of column of column 7 of the judgment of the first instance court (based on recognition). Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The defendant's argument is based on the premise that the contract price of this case was terminated even among the total construction cost of KRW 473,00,000 under the contract of this case due to the plaintiff's default, the defendant sought payment of KRW 113,170,178 for the remainder of the construction cost after deducting KRW 305,00,000 for the received construction cost, and KRW 47,547,160 for the unpaid construction cost, defect repair cost, and KRW 7,282,62 for the defect repair cost.

B. Determination 1) First of all, there is a dispute between the parties on the grounds for the termination of the instant contract, and this is examined. In the event one of the parties to the contract does not perform his/her obligation, the other party may rescind the contract when he/she gives notice of performance within a reasonable period and does not perform his/her obligation within the said period (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da1342, 1343, Feb. 23, 1971). In light of the following circumstances revealed by the facts acknowledged as above and the evidence, the Defendant, the contractor, should complete the instant construction by June 30, 2012, while he/she unilaterally suspended the construction without a justifiable reason, clearly expresses his/her intention not to perform the remainder of the construction before July 11, 2012, and the Plaintiff’s notification of the rescission of the instant contract to the Defendant on July 24, 2012, and the Plaintiff reached the Defendant’s rescission on July 24, 2012.