손해배상(기)
1. Of the part against Defendant B Co., Ltd. in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount is the amount ordered to be paid.
1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the alteration or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the basic facts is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "D Company" is replaced by "J division of the corporation".
Part 3 of the first instance judgment, Part 19 "No. 3" shall be added to "(including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply)."
2. Determination on a claim for return of unjust enrichment arising from the payment in excess of the contract price
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is KRW 1,652,531,00 for the construction cost that the Plaintiff paid to Defendant B by April 20, 2013. As of April 20, 2013, the actual construction cost as of April 20, 2013 confirmed by the ordering authority and the supervising authority (the details of the seventh term) is KRW 1,642,447,00, and Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff an unjust enrichment of KRW 10,084,00 (=652,531,000 - KRW 1,642,642,47,00) and damages for delay.
B. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2 and the oral argument, Article 20(2) of the instant construction contract provides that “where the Plaintiff received progress payment from the ordering person, it shall pay to the Defendant B an amount equivalent to the portion executed by the Defendant B within 15 days from the date of receipt of the payment.” As such, the construction payment that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant B is deemed to have been paid as a considerable amount of money for the portion executed by the Defendant B pursuant to the above provision, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it solely on the basis of each of the statement of settlement, construction cost account statement, and evidence No. 8, 17, and 18, which are the comparison table of the fair ratio, which are not verified by the preparing as to the fact that the construction payment that the Plaintiff paid to Defendant B by April 20, 2013 exceeds the portion executed by the Defendant B
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Determination on the return of unjust enrichment by subrogation or the claim for reimbursement by subrogation
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion.