1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as stated in the written judgment of the first instance court; (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the first instance judgment, “A shall hand over the documents, other than the certificate of completion of communications and the certificate of completion of sewage, from among the required documents at the time of filing an application for approval for use of the instant construction work on or around December 28, 2011,” which read “The Plaintiff shall have most necessary documents at the time of filing an application for approval for use of the instant construction work as of December 30, 201, but the certificate of completion of communications and the certificate of completion of sewage have not been prepared.”

B. On the 6th written judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the 19th to 7th of the 7th of the 6th trial (i.e., the part on the completion of the instant construction, from the “the completion of the instant construction,” to the “approval for the use of the instant factory”

(c) eliminate each entry of Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 15, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 22 among the pages 7 of the judgment of the first instance court [based grounds for recognition], and dismiss "Witness E" as "Witness E of the first instance court."

2. The Plaintiff asserted the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim that: (a) the Plaintiff rescinded the instant contract on January 4, 2012 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not complete the instant construction until December 30, 201, which is the deadline for construction of the instant construction; and (b) accordingly, the Plaintiff may confiscate the contract bond pursuant to Article 13 of the instant contract; (c) it constitutes an insured incident stipulated in the instant insurance contract, and thus, (d) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff insurance money of KRW 391,410,000 and delay damages therefrom.

3. The Plaintiff’s assertion of determination is based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s notice of cancellation on January 4, 2012 is lawful and effective, as it was impossible for A to complete the instant construction by December 30, 201.

If the Corporation has not completed the last process scheduled to be interrupted during the proceeding.