1. The appeal by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the incidental appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the trial are expanded by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The court's explanation concerning the instant case is the fourth-party decision of the court of first instance.

2.(a)

In addition to adding evidence Nos. 21 through 23 as evidence which is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s cause attributable to the termination of the instant construction contract, the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if the Defendant concluded the instant construction contract and received down payment of KRW 10,200,000 from the Plaintiff on June 20, 2014, the commencement of construction has been abandoned on August 19, 2014 without justifiable grounds, the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant for the reimbursement of KRW 10,200,000 for the said down payment and the refund of KRW 10,200,000 from the date of the contract completion to August 19, 2014, which is the date of the waiver of the commencement of construction, and the reimbursement of KRW 19,720,000, which is the liquidated damages for delay for the total of 33-day construction period under the contract, which appears to have been able to have been completed if another construction business operator had performed normally or had been performed by another construction business operator.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all of the appeals by the defendant and the plaintiff's incidental appeal and the plaintiff's claims expanded in the trial are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.