1. The Defendant’s KRW 56,891,932 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from July 19, 2017 to February 4, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the resource recycling business, and the Defendant is a personal entrepreneur who runs the construction business under the trade name of “C”.

Around September 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “the first contract”) for construction works (the construction cost of KRW 288,00,000, value-added tax, separate from KRW 288,000,000), which newly constructed the steel frame and the board structure factory on the land outside D and four parcels, including Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and KRW 4, respectively. On November 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant modified the said additional contract for construction works (the construction cost of KRW 58,00,000, value-added tax of KRW 00, value-added tax, separate from the construction cost of KRW 58,00,00, value-added tax; together with the first contract, the instant contract was concluded; and the construction work under the instant contract was referred to as “the instant construction work”).

B. A building permit for the instant construction project was issued on November 2015.

The Defendant re-subcontracted the instant construction work to E in a lump sum. On December 2015, E commenced and continued the instant construction work, and ceased the instant construction work around August 2016.

The plaintiff urged the defendant to resume construction works, but the defendant demanded additional payment of the construction cost and did not resume construction works.

The plaintiff notified the defendant that he would directly proceed with the remaining construction and completed the approval for use on or before February 2017.

C. From September 30, 2015 to August 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 331,530,000 ( approximately KRW 87.1% of the construction price of the instant contract) to the account in the name of the Defendant or E’s spouse.

Expert G appraised that at the time of the discontinuance of the work by the defendant, the ratio of the non-construction (unfit height) is 41.92%.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1-5 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, 7-11, E testimony of a witness E, appraiser G's appraisal results, and fact-finding reply results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On the wind of the Plaintiff’s discontinuance of construction work, the Plaintiff was directly performing the instant construction work.