1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for construction cost of KRW 15,400,000 ( KRW 550,000 per square year x 28) for the construction cost (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) among the new construction works of the building on the ground C, the Plaintiff started the instant construction work around that time.

B. On August 13, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff, respectively, and KRW 5,000,000 for the same month, and additionally paid KRW 1,60,000 for the equipment for civil engineering works.

C. Around August 2015, the Plaintiff discontinued the instant construction work, and the Defendant, after suspending the instant construction work, performed the construction work at the Defendant’s expense.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 6, 14, Eul evidence 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was 15,100,000 won (a total of KRW 11,900,000 civil engineering works of KRW 3,200,000) in the instant construction works, including material cost, personnel cost, equipment cost, etc., and the Defendant suffered damages of KRW 4,445,730 by using the Plaintiff’s materials without the consent.

If the above money includes 1,190,000 won for corporate profits (11,90,000 won for 10%) from the above money, the defendant shall pay 20,735,730 won to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 10,735,730 (=20,735,730-10,000), which remains after deducting the construction cost already paid to the Plaintiff (=20,735,730-10,000), and damages for delay.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the instant contract was terminated at the time when the Plaintiff ceased the instant construction work, which was the contractor, as of August 2015, and that the Defendant, the contractor, directly performed the instant construction work without seeking the contract performance to the Plaintiff.

As above, the contractor has not completed the construction.