1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The asserted Plaintiff, as the owner of Pyeongtaek-si C and D (hereinafter “instant land”), entered into a joint development agreement with E on April 2, 2015 for the creation of electric source housing site. On the same day, E and the Defendant and F entered into a contract with the Defendant for construction cost of KRW 350,000,000. The Defendant and F continued construction from April 2, 2015 to July 10, 2015.

Then, on August 6, 2015, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to exclude E and to complete all the construction works suspended upon the Plaintiff’s direct contract to the Defendant, and prepared a written confirmation stating that “The Plaintiff would complete all the construction works within one month on the face of the week and return the said KRW 150,000 if the Plaintiff violated this,” which read that the Plaintiff would return the said KRW 150,000,000.

Accordingly, even though the Plaintiff paid construction cost of KRW 150,00,000 to the Defendant on August 6, 2015, the Defendant agreed not only to commence construction works but also to return KRW 150,00,000 in the event of failure to implement the agreement, but also did not return the said amount. Thus, the Plaintiff terminated the said construction contract by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case and demanded the return of KRW 150,00,000.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, according to the confirmation document prepared by the plaintiff with the defendant on August 6, 2015, the following facts are stated to the effect that "the remaining construction shall be completed and sold after the completion of the construction work. The land owner plaintiff shall return the development cost of KRW 150,000 to the landowner at the time of the violation of the promise." (The defendant recognizes the defendant's signature and the authenticity of personal information stated in the above confirmation document, while recognizing the defendant's signature and the authenticity of personal information stated in the above confirmation document, it is insufficient to recognize it solely by the document No. 8). However, it is insufficient to acknowledge it with the plaintiff's name to return the development cost of KRW 150,00,000 to the landowner at the time of the violation of the promise."