1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,642,813 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 24, 2013 to February 6, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction work execution contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Defendant on the construction period from April 15, 2013 to July 31, 2013 with respect to the construction work for the ground B (hereinafter “instant construction work”) (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with the Plaintiff, under which the construction cost of KRW 280,000,000 (in the case of a down payment separate from value-added tax, KRW 10% of the contract amount, immediately after the contract was entered into, the first intermediate payment is 50% of the contract amount after the removal work; the second intermediate payment is 30% of the contract amount on the commencement date of the civil construction work after the removal work; the second intermediate payment is 30% of the contract amount before the completion of steel construction and the remainder is to be paid after the completion of the construction work).

B. Article 6-2 (Adjustment and Design Change) of the instant construction contract provides that “A (Plaintiff) may change the construction period, construction contents, contract amount, etc. of the instant construction in consultation with the Defendant where it is necessary to adjust construction works related to the instant construction in order to facilitate the instant construction work; ② In the event of a cause for design change, a detailed statement shall be prepared in writing and shall be agreed with the owner of the instant construction; C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 252,00,000 as the construction price to the Defendant six times during the period from April 12, 2013 to June 14, 2013 after the conclusion of the instant construction contract. Meanwhile, the Defendant suspended the instant construction project as a matter of dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on July 2013, when the instant construction project was being implemented, and the Plaintiff did not present any ground for cancellation or cancellation of the instant construction contract as a whole, and the Plaintiff did not present any grounds for dispute over the instant construction contract.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion unilaterally discontinued the instant construction work on or around July 2013, and as at the time of suspension, the Defendant merely suspended the construction work of the instant case to the extent of 70%.