1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the dismissal of the 7th to 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. 1) Determination on the amount of liquidated damages should be made on the date following the scheduled date of completion as stipulated in each of the instant contracts as the time for liquidated damages. However, in full view of the entries and arguments in subparagraph 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the scheduled date of completion to the end of June 2013 in the instant extension contract through the instant confirmation, and to the end of July 1, 2013 in the case of the instant new construction contract. Therefore, in the instant extension contract, the period of liquidated damages shall be deemed the time of occurrence of liquidated damages in the instant new construction contract as of August 1, 2013, respectively. 203 in the instant new construction contract, the period from the date following the agreed date of completion to the date when the contractor discontinues construction without completing the construction within the due date of completion of the construction and delayed completion as a result of the contract, but the period of liquidated damages shall be the period from the date of completion to the date when the contractor ceases construction or cancel the construction contract to the date when the contractor was discharged from the contract (the contractor).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da39511 Decided April 28, 2006, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da41137 Decided January 28, 2010, etc.). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts recognized earlier and the overall purport of oral arguments, in the instant housing, the first order of November 10, 2013, when the Defendant ceased construction and leaves the site.