1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, in addition to adding the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s newly presented argument in the court of first instance as to the instant case, even if the Plaintiff submitted evidence in the court of first instance, it is identical to the part on the grounds of the judgment in the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff, as stated in Article 3 (4) of the instant provisional contract, intentionally deleted the phrase “in the event that the completion is delayed for more than two months from the date of the initial scheduled completion of the instant provisional contract due to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff, the Defendant intentionally deleted the amount calculated by applying 20% overdue rate to the number of delayed days or deducted from the remaining payment,” and pursuant to the instant provisional contract and Article 5 of the instant provisional contract, the grounds for the Defendant’s rescission of the contract are specifically specified, while the Plaintiff’s rescission of the contract is “in the event of his own personal situation,” it is de facto impossible to cancel the contract due to the delay in the construction of the Si and the Defendant. According to the instant provisional contract and Article 5 (3) of the instant contract, the Plaintiff would be unduly deprived of the contract amount exceeding seven times the Defendant’s capital if the Plaintiff cancels the contract due to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant provisional contract and the instant contract are concluded unfairly.

The following circumstances are revealed by the purport of the evidence No. 1, No. 4, and No. 9 and the entire arguments. In other words, the present contract of this case is specified as the completion date on June 30, 2016, but it is stated as “(if any change is made according to the process, it will be later notified)” at the bottom of the contract, and the Plaintiff entered into this contract with the Defendant under the understanding that the completion date may be somewhat delayed.