1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction work was completed after being awarded a contract from the Defendant for the construction work of the above housing construction work of the Incheon Reinforcement Group C, but the Defendant did not pay the construction cost up to now.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 117,500,000 and delay damages.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the construction contract was concluded with the Defendant, but the said construction contract was rescinded only once a day, and the Plaintiff did not proceed with the construction work.

C. According to the written statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of this court witness D's testimony and arguments, Eul, the defendant's spouse, contracted to D the land construction work in Incheon, Incheon, Inc. (hereinafter "the construction work in this case") owned by the defendant to D on September 28, 2016, with the price of KRW 105,00,00 (excluding value-added tax), and Eul, while performing approximately 70% of the construction in this case on December 20, 2016 during the construction work in this case, performed the remainder and transferred the construction work in this case. The defendant transferred the remainder on December 21, 2016, only the construction work price for the remaining part except for the remaining part of KRW 2,450,000,000, which has been executed by D among the construction works in this case, shall be subject to the above condition, but it can be acknowledged that D entered into a contract for additional construction work.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff actually performed all of the remainder of the construction in this case only with the images of the evidence Nos. 2 and 32, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the evidence mentioned above and the purport of the evidence stated in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 and the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff demanded additional costs, etc., and the said contract was immediately rescinded.

Ultimately, the plaintiff seems to have concluded the above contract with the defendant and immediately rescinded it, and there is no other fact that the plaintiff performed the remainder of the construction work in this case.