1. The Plaintiff’s contract for the audio-visual expansion work concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 29, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2016, C High Schools (hereinafter “Defendant”) as the Defendant’s affiliated organization determined the basic amount as KRW 382,037,00 with respect to the audio-visual expansion works in Chigh Schools (hereinafter “instant construction works”), and publicly announced the announcement of the tender to the National Integrated Electronic Procurement System.

B. The Plaintiff was selected as a successful bidder around November 23, 2016 in the said electronic bid, and entered into a contract with the Defendant on November 29, 2016 with respect to the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant contract”) as follows.

Total construction amount: 334,05,500 won (200,368,000 won for government-funded materials): 0.1% contract deposit for delay from December 1, 2016 to February 8, 2017 (70 days): 50,108,325 won (Submission of written guarantee by D Association on November 29, 2016).

C. As to the instant construction project, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the design drawings offered by the Plaintiff need to be supplemented due to the omission of checks, etc., and notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant contract on the ground that the Defendant demanded the adjustment of the contract amount corresponding thereto, and the Defendant urged the commencement of construction several times, and on February 10, 2017, the Plaintiff did not proceed with the construction project.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (i) The plaintiff's assertion: the plaintiff's design drawing submitted by the defendant was in a situation where it is impossible to start the contract, and the contract price adjustment is required when the construction work is carried out according to the design drawing received thereafter, but the defendant unilaterally terminated the contract of this case without complying therewith. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff damages equivalent to the profit of the contract of this case

Shed Defendant’s argument: The Plaintiff was negligent in participating in the tender without examining detailed specifications, such as design and volume, at the time of the tender of the instant construction project, and then complementary design drawings.