1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be applied for the return of the provisional payment.

1. Except for the following determination as to the assertion that the defendant cited in the judgment of the court of first instance added in the trial, this court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the agreement that the Defendant selected as the contractor on September 9, 2017 constitutes a pre-contract for the conclusion of the construction contract, and that the Plaintiff illegally rescinded the construction reservation without justifiable grounds or procedures, thereby infringing on the Defendant’s rights. The agreement that the successful bidder at the time of the tender infringes on the Defendant’s rights by unfairly cancelling the construction reservation without justifiable grounds and that the contract was concluded on the condition that the contract was not concluded under the condition that the contract was not concluded, which is the main contract, and thus, the agreement on the

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of arguments to the statements in Gap evidence 6, 8, 9 (including the number of pages), Eul evidence 2, and 5, are as follows: ① After reviewing the law through questioning and reply with the law firm, the plaintiff notified the defendant that "it is impossible to enter into a contract for construction works after amending the contract approved by the general meeting of this case, and any amendment to the contract shall be carried out at the next general meeting." The defendant refused to enter into the contract for construction works as stated in the resolution adopted at the general meeting of this case; ② The plaintiff demanded the defendant to respond to the contract within three months from the date of the appointment by the general meeting of this case pursuant to the provisions on the participation in the tender for construction works, and the defendant did not comply with the request even though the defendant requested the defendant to respond to the conclusion of the contract by December 8, 2017, the defendant sent the plaintiff's opinion on December 21, 2017, reflecting this.

Until now, it has been notified to the effect that "the conclusion of the agreement is completed as soon as possible," and the phrase is also based on it.