1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6:

On April 24, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) contracted the construction work of expanding the two-story housing (15 square meters on the first floor, 2nd floor, 15 square meters on the warehouse, 10 square meters on the ground of Kimhae-si to Defendant B (the registration of the business operator is in the name of Defendant D, his father); and (b) contracted the construction work of expanding the two-story housing (15 square meters on the first floor, 15 square meters on the second floor, and 10 square meters on the warehouse) with the trade name of “E”; and (c) during the construction work, the construction work price was increased to KRW 15 million on the ground of adding the area of one story to 15 square meters during the construction work, and the construction cost was changed to KRW 5 million.5 million

B. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff had prepared a written contract for the instant construction project with Defendant B, which was in the process of the instant construction project, and the said written contract states that, in the case of an ordinary-prefabricated housing construction project, the price of KRW 250-3 million per square meter shall be determined, but in the case of the instant construction project, the said written contract is at a price at a discount of less than 50% than the general construction cost in the form of simplified extension. Therefore, considering such circumstances, the Plaintiff, who is the ordering person, shall be given discretion to the Defendant B, who is the contractor, in material and public law, and shall complete the instant construction project by July 10, 2014.

C. Upon Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45 million in total on four occasions between April 24, 2014 and May 22, 2014 as part of the instant construction cost.

On the other hand, the construction of this case was suspended when the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant was raised due to the differences in the construction method and the delay of construction.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s determination on the claim for restitution due to the cancellation of the contract as to the claim against Defendant B is based on structural risks, such as the wall, roof, basic structure, etc., in which the instant housing constructed by Defendant B had inherent inherent risk.