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 dismissed.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by applying the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the same as that for the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by applying the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. Determination 1 as to the claim for remainder of construction work A) The Plaintiff, during the instant construction work, did not construct toilets, fences, water supply, etc., cut the tent pipe and left the construction site on November 1, 2014, while leaving the construction site of this case.

B) The court of first instance urged the Plaintiff’s agent to make an additional appraisal on the Plaintiff’s technical knowledge on the date of examination of appraiser (on November 6, 2015, 11:00), but the Plaintiff’s agent did not file an application for the said appraisal. [Grounds for recognition] the Plaintiff could not be recognized as having completed the instant construction work, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. (B) In the event that the contract for construction is rescinded without the completion of the construction work and the construction cost is to be settled upon the rescission of the contract for construction work, the construction cost shall not be calculated by deducting the construction cost actually required for the completion of the non-construction portion from the total construction cost, and the construction cost shall be calculated by applying the agreed construction cost ratio calculated based on the completed construction portion and the construction cost actually required or to be required for the non-construction portion, barring special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Meu26232 delivered on April 23, 1991, etc.). There is no evidence to acknowledge the utility rate, and the above assertion is without merit.

C. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the claim for additional construction costs are with the exception of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance that “300,500,000 won” of the 4th page 14 is “30,500,000 won.”