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

A. Around August 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant on the following terms (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

Construction Construction Standard Contract

1. Name of construction: One-story detached house; and

2. Site location: Gwangju City of Gyeonggi-do.

3. Commencement of construction period on August 25, 2017.

4. Contract amount: The value-added tax amount in the daily amount of KRW 10 million per day: the amount of KRW 10,000,000 per day: the amount of KRW 10,000,000 per day.

5. Prepaid money: Lampering thousand won.

B. As to the instant construction contract, the Defendant received KRW 75 million from the Plaintiff, around August 2017, and KRW 20 million around September 2017, and KRW 95 million from the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant received KRW 95 million in relation to the construction contract of this case and actually carried out construction works equivalent to KRW 68 million, the plaintiff received KRW 3,700,000 from the board compensation to be received by the plaintiff, the plaintiff should return the amount of KRW 30,700 (= KRW 95,000,000 - KRW 68,000,000) to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment (= KRW 370,000).

However, only the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 were written by the Defendant with respect to the instant construction contract, the Defendant actually carried out only the construction work equivalent to KRW 68 million.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has received 3.7 million won or more, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.