The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 5, the lower court determined that the instant construction was suspended on November 30, 2014 without completing the instant construction until November 30, 2014, which is the completion date alleged by the Defendant, and that the Defendant completed the instant construction on January 4, 2015, while continuing the remaining construction, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the completion of the construction was attributable to the Defendant, on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the construction was not completed.

Furthermore, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the construction cost for the part on the completed portion of the Plaintiff’s construction was KRW 3,262,070,000 and the construction cost already received by the Plaintiff as the construction cost was KRW 3,252,60,000, and determined that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the construction cost that the Plaintiff had not received was paid was KRW 9,470,000, and that the Plaintiff exceeded that.

Then, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s declaration of set-off on December 10, 2015, based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the above completion date was due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, had a claim for liquidated damages of KRW 126,490,00 in accordance with the agreement on liquidated damages for delay under the instant construction contract, and that the said claim for liquidated damages of KRW 9,470,000 was extinguished by the Defendant’s declaration of set-off as of December 10, 2015.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the rescission of a construction contract, the exercise of a right to clarify, the offset, or inconsistency in the reasoning, omitting judgment, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 6, 7, and 8, the lower court.