1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,741,476 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 25, 2014 to January 7, 2016.

Basic Facts

A. On October 22, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an agreement on farmland restoration works (Evidence A2) with the content that the construction period for four parcels of land, including C, 22,112 square meters, owned by the Defendant, shall be up to February 28, 2009, and the construction cost shall be 450,000,000 won, and 1,503 square meters, among the land subject to construction works, shall be paid in kind, and 1,503 square meters, among the land subject to construction. The Plaintiff concluded an agreement on farmland restoration works (No. 2) with the content that the Plaintiff wishes to perform farmland restoration works, such as filing a report, disposal of trees,

B. On May 31, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an agreement on farmland restoration works (Evidence No. 3 and No. 1; hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the content that each of the land subject to construction works is modified by December 31, 201, into the farmland restoration project with the period of construction as of 59,598 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si, and the period of construction.

C. Although the Plaintiff partially carried out farmland restoration construction pursuant to the instant construction contract, it was impossible to complete the construction within a fixed construction period, the Plaintiff suspended the construction after March 2013. The Defendant concluded a separate contract with Daan Construction Co., Ltd. on May 30, 2013 and concluded the instant construction work around October 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 10 (including each number number), and a summary of the purport of the entire pleadings, and a summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff was performing construction work by inserting KRW 508,230,904 (including value-added tax) according to the instant construction contract, but the Defendant unilaterally released the instant construction contract by allowing a third party to complete the construction work.

Since the Plaintiff received only KRW 170,000,000 from the Defendant as the instant construction cost, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 338,230,904 (= KRW 508,230,904 - KRW 170,000,00).

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff failed to complete the instant construction within the agreed period.