1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operates the artificial park business with the “E” trade name, and the Defendant is the owner of the “D”, who is the U.S. military age club located in the Dongducheon-si.

In around 1996, the plaintiff and the defendant were first aware of the defendant's new housing construction, and developed into a relationship of personal relations around 201.

B. On July 201, the Defendant concluded a contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) under which “D” buildings built between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) will contract the Plaintiff for construction cost of KRW 300,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the “D” building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) which is constructed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff at the end of October 201.

C. On December 3, 2011, the Plaintiff started the instant construction work. D.

On December 9, 201, the Defendant paid KRW 84,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the construction cost of the instant contract, and KRW 25,000,000 on December 26, 201, and KRW 5,000,000 on January 5, 2012, and KRW 5,000,000 on January 16, 2012, and KRW 84,000,000 on a total of KRW 16,00 on January 16, 201.

E. On February 7, 2012, when the Plaintiff was unable to complete the instant construction work, the Plaintiff suspended the instant construction work, and around February 14, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of waiver of construction that “I will delay air by using construction costs while performing the instant construction work, and cause enormous losses to the instant construction work, and deliver to the Defendant a letter of waiver of construction that “I will waive the instant construction work, and at the same time confirm that I had the principal’s construction amounts and legal responsibilities.”

F. On March 10, 2012, the Defendant directly proceeded with the instant construction and completed the construction, and subsequently resumed the D’s business.

G. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation (No. 2013Gahap72876).