beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim changed in the trial, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 6, and 7 (including the branch numbers if there are numbers).
The Plaintiff was the owner of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 165 square meters and D large 93 square meters, and there were 40 square meters and 40 square meters in the building site of the Plaintiff-owned mentmen's mentoracom evaluation plant in 10 square meters, and there were 15 square meters in total and 15 square meters in the building site per annum and 50.25 square meters in the building register (hereinafter "the instant house").
B. However, around October 2012, 108 square meters, among the above C Group 165 square meters and 108 square meters, were incorporated into a road, and only 57 square meters remain. A factory building located in the part incorporated into a road has been partially removed and only 40 square meters of the mentmenan Anmar assessment plant (hereinafter “instant factory”).
C. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant, a construction business operator operating F on September 17, 2013, to make a large-scale repair and alteration of the use of the remaining parts of the instant factory and the instant house combined with the instant house.
The construction name: The total construction cost from September 2013 to October 20, 2013: 43 million won;
D. Around September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant with the advance payment. Around September 2013, the Defendant removed the instant factory and part of the instant housing.
E. After that, between September 2013 and November 2013, the Defendant filed an application for permission for large-scale repair and alteration of the purpose of use with the Guro-gu Office, and on November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for permission for large-scale repair and alteration of the purpose of use of the instant plant.