1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to construct a detached house building area of 137.70 square meters and total floor area of 148.71 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land in the former Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter “instant building”). The date of commencement is around April 2013; the date of completion is around August 2013; the construction amount is KRW 200 million; the construction amount is KRW 40,000,000 (payment at the completion of 70% of the construction term); the construction amount is KRW 60,000 (payment at the completion of 90% of the construction term); the second intermediate payment is paid at KRW 40,000 (payment after completion of construction completion).

B. Around April 2013, the Plaintiff began construction of the instant building; KRW 40 million from the Defendant on May 6, 2013; KRW 40 million on July 12, 2013; KRW 20 million on September 11, 2013; and KRW 20 million on September 26, 2013; and KRW 120 million on September 26, 2013, respectively; and the Plaintiff paid the construction price.

C. A dispute arises between the original and the Defendant on October 5, 2013 due to the progress of construction works and the payment of construction cost, and the Plaintiff’s suspension of construction of the instant building on October 5, 2013. On October 15, 2013, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail stating that “the cancellation of the instant contract shall be made following the discontinuance of construction works,” but the said content-certified mail was returned to the Plaintiff on October 23, 2013, and the said content-certified mail was returned to the Plaintiff on October 23, 2013. On October 25, 2013, the said content-certified mail sent to the Plaintiff.

On October 25, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for preservation of evidence with the Jeonju District Court 2013Kaga946 (hereinafter “instant procedure for application for preservation of evidence”), and the appraiser D appointed in the said procedure was examined as follows: (a) on December 31, 2013, about 64.4% of the existing construction rate of the instant building (including additional construction) and about 0.84% of the additional construction without the design drawing; and (b) on December 31, 2013, an appraisal summary report to the effect that “The said court was investigated as being executed more than 0.84% of the additional construction without the design drawing.”