The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, where the contractor has to settle the construction cost due to the rescission of the construction contract without completing the construction work, such construction cost shall be calculated on the basis of the agreed total construction cost between the parties, barring any special circumstances. However, if special circumstances are acknowledged, such as the existence of an agreement on remuneration for the part of the flag, it is reasonable to deem that it may be calculated differently.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da39769, May 24, 2013). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court recognized the period of the instant construction as 8.64%.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the method of calculating the base amount

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, since they differ from the instant case.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone was insufficient to recognize that the instant concession agreement was cancelled due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and that no other evidence exists

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the duty of the contractor to cooperate in the construction work, the probative value of appraisal

3. On the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined as follows.