1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works (the instant contract) with Nonparty C and one other party, for the extension of three-story buildings (subject buildings) on the Seoul Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western District, and for the construction of structural reinforcement and removal works (including structural reinforcement and removal works for existing buildings) from April 25, 2010 to July 10, 201, for the construction period, from July 25, 2010 to July 10, 201, for the construction cost of KRW 520,000 of the construction cost (the amount of the structural reinforcement, removal works, and value-added tax separately).

B. On April 23, 2010, the Defendant entered into a subcontract (the instant subcontract) with the effect that it subcontracts the removal, carriage, and reinforcement of unauthorized structures among the construction works to the Plaintiff. The scope of subcontracted construction works is the removal of buildings outside the official gazette, the arrangement of transportation, the removal of basic parts other than the permitted portion of the construction works, the arrangement of temporary materials and the protection prevention for the existing removal works.

C. After entering into a contract, the Plaintiff performed removal works for the building without permission. On May 24, 2010, the Plaintiff confirmed that the building was built to remove the first, second, and third floors of the building in excess of the scope of the permitted large-scale repair. At the request of the Defendant, the construction was suspended on the ground that deliberation was conducted on the building permit.

On July 1, 2010, the head of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government filed a complaint with the owner and took administrative measures against the supervisor on July 1, 2010, on the ground that the construction was conducted without any prior permission, and the construction work under the instant subcontract did not proceed any longer.

E. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the contract since it is unclear whether the contract will be resumed after the discontinuance of construction by content-certified mail.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5 (including provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

(a) each of the evidence, evidence No. 6, and expert witness before determining the cause of the claim;