1. The Defendant paid KRW 66,706,904 to the Plaintiff as well as 5% per annum from January 8, 2016 to June 19, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2015, the Plaintiff awarded a verbal contract to the Defendant for the construction work of a child-care center of the second floor size on the ground C in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant construction”) at KRW 189,00,000 for the cost of construction, including the cost of removal of the existing building.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the construction cost of KRW 169,00,000, and KRW 50,000,000 on February 5, 11, 100, and KRW 10,000,000 on November 30, 11, and KRW 12.9.9,00,000 on September 10, 12, and KRW 90,000 on December 15, 12.

C. From September 2015, the Defendant directly carried out the instant construction from around December 21, 2015, and paid KRW 61,000,000 among D, to D the instant construction cost of KRW 80,000,00 for the steel frame, the steel team, and the window part among the instant construction cost.

On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the destruction of the instant contract, and the Defendant, up to that time, completed the removal of the existing building, retaining wall construction, the foundation construction of the first floor and steel framed construction.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5 through 8, 15, 17 (including, if any, branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and images, the appraisal result by appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On February 2016, the Plaintiff planned the opening of a child-care center with the Defendant and entered into the instant contract, and the Defendant did not properly perform the instant construction, except the retaining wall and the primary construction for the first floor, even if most of the construction cost was paid by the Plaintiff, and submitted only the unrefluent cost expenditure data objectively reliable.

The Defendant, even though he did not have the intention or ability to complete the instant construction, was deceiving the Plaintiff to conclude the instant construction contract.

The plaintiff and the defendant discussed about the progress of construction from around December 2015, but eventually, on January 6, 2016, the contract of this case was rescinded due to the defendant's default.

Therefore, the Defendant concluded the instant contract with the Plaintiff.