1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 13, 2016, the Defendant obtained approval for the housing construction plan by setting the number of floors as the first underground floor and the 16th floor above the ground, the total floor area as 6,086.5424 square meters, and the purpose of use as multi-family housing (multi-family housing-51 households) and ancillary and welfare facilities.

B. On July 14, 2016, through the introduction of E, which was the former representative director of the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered into a contract for building design to change the number of floors with respect to G of the architect office F and the instant construction into the 1st underground floor, the 18th underground floor, and the total floor area to the 6,856.40 square meters and to obtain the approval for change of the housing construction project plan.

[Standard Contract for Private Construction Works] 【Standard Contract for Private Construction Works】

C. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant signed a contract for the instant construction work by designating the Defendant and the contractor as the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”). D.

On December 28, 2016, the Defendant obtained approval for the modification of the said housing construction plan according to the changed design of the first underground floor, the 18th underground floor, the total floor area of 6,863.023 square meters with respect to the instant construction project.

E. On May 23, 2017, the Defendant entered into a construction contract with H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) with the contract amount of KRW 7,473,60,000 on the basis of the modified design as above.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 7 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 15, 2016, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 1,179,400,000 (=5,897,000,000 x 0.2) for construction profit equivalent to 20% of the total construction cost, as damages equivalent to the performance profit arising from nonperformance of the contract. However, even though the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 700,000,000, which is a part of the contract, as damages equivalent to the performance profit arising from nonperformance of the contract.