1. The Defendant: 39,634 won to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from March 14, 2015 to November 19, 2015, and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a building construction contract with the Defendant to newly construct one unit of detached house with a total floor area of KRW 9.6 square meters at KRW 100,000,000 on the ground of Seocheon-si, Incheon.

(hereinafter “instant construction contract”). B.

According to the instant construction contract, the Defendant agreed to pay the design cost and various authorization and permission costs, separate from the above construction cost.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the construction contract of this case was rescinded on December 4, 2014 because the Plaintiff could no longer proceed with the construction due to the Defendant’s circumstances while performing the construction work under the instant construction contract.

Until the contract of this case is terminated, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the construction cost of KRW 35,00,000 (=100,000,000 x 35%) on the basis of the judgment of the court, since the Plaintiff has performed the fairness of at least 35% of the total construction cost as stipulated in the contract of this case.

In addition, the Plaintiff used the total of KRW 4,54,00, total of KRW 7,304,000, and KRW 5,000,000 for the construction of a building, such as design cost of KRW 2,750,00 for the construction of a building, and farmland diversion, etc., and the Defendant paid only KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 2,304

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of 37,304,000 won = construction cost + KRW 35,000,000 + design cost plus KRW 2,304,00) and delay damages.

3. First, we examine the claim for the construction cost, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff performed the fairness of 35% of the total construction cost as stipulated in the contract of this case (in this case, the plaintiff recommended the plaintiff to prove through appraisal application, etc. over several times during the trial, but the plaintiff failed to perform it at all), and the part of the plaintiff's claim for the construction cost is without merit.

Next, with respect to the remainder claims such as design fees, Gap, 3.