1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,91,821 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from January 20, 2014 to December 24, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2013, the Plaintiff, a company running a construction business, agreed with the Defendant to perform construction works for expansion of existing factory buildings located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong, 359-176 (hereinafter “instant construction works”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant construction works”). Around August 5, 2013, the details of the construction contract were to determine upon completion of the design drawings under work.

B. Before the completion of design drawings and building permission were granted to the Plaintiff, the Defendant requested that the Plaintiff first commence the removal works of the existing building and the joint wall construction works for the body of the retaining wall, and the Plaintiff suspended the said construction works at the Defendant’s request on September 13, 2013.

[Based on the recognition] Evidence No. 1-1-4, Evidence No. 2-1-1 and video, A’s testimony, inquiry results to the head of Daegu Metropolitan City, Daegu Metropolitan City, and purport of the entire pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Determination as to whether the Defendant is liable for the payment of the construction cost is determined 1) The Plaintiff is seeking the payment of the construction cost on the part of the completed height. 2) As seen earlier, the said construction contract is terminated in the middle of the said construction contract. In the case of a construction work contract, even if the contract is rescinded and the completed part is not completed, if the construction is considerably advanced and the restoration to its original state would incur significant social and economic loss, and the completed part would benefit the contractor, the contract is invalidated only on the completed part and the contractor delivers the building to the contractor as it is, and the contractor is liable to pay a reasonable remuneration for the building delivered in consideration of the expiration of the construction.

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1751 Decided September 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu32470, 32487 Decided December 26, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 93Da42320 Decided August 12, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 94Da1854 Decided November 4, 1994