1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the construction cost paid in excess of the principal lawsuit at the first instance court, and damages arising from delay in construction. The Defendant filed a claim for the payment of the unpaid amount out of the agreed additional construction cost as a counterclaim.

The court of the first instance declared a judgment citing each part of the principal claim and the counterclaim claim, and it is evident that the plaintiff filed an appeal only against the principal claim, and that the plaintiff filed an incidental appeal only against the principal claim after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal.

Therefore, it is judged that only the principal claim is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of paragraph (1)

3. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On November 29, 2016, the Defendant unilaterally suspended the instant construction. The Defendant’s unilateral discontinuance of the instant construction constitutes nonperformance of the obligation under the instant contract, and thus, the instant contract is cancelled by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant. The Defendant asserted to the Plaintiff that, by obtaining the Defendant’s content certification (Evidence No. 8-2) that notified the Plaintiff of the discontinuance of construction pursuant to Article 7 of the terms and conditions of the instant contract, the Plaintiff may rescind the instant contract by obtaining the Defendant’s content certification (Evidence No. 8-2) from January 3, 2017 to May 26, 2017, which was 143 days delayed from May 26, 2017, the date of approval for the use of the instant building (i.e., KRW 720 million x KRW 310 million x 3/100 x 143 days delayed). (The Plaintiff asserted that, in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff claimed compensation for delay from the date of approval for the completion of the instant construction.

However, the first instance judgment that the Plaintiff is responsible for the delay and discontinuance of the instant construction project is unreasonable.

On the other hand, the agreement on liquidated damages is an arrangement.