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

A. On December 9, 2013, the Defendant issued a public parking lot appointment notice to a private outsourcing operator of a public parking lot in 2014, stating the projected price as KRW 98,154,050 for on-road parking lots located on the off-road parking lot located on the off-road parking lot located on the off-road parking lot located on the off-road of the Seoul metropolitan metropolitan metropolitan highway, which was located on July 9, 201

B. The above estimated price is the amount calculated as “area of parking lot (land) area per one unit” in accordance with attached Table 2 of the Ordinance on the Installation and Management of Parking Lots x area of pages x individual land price in neighboring areas x (25/1,000) x period of occupation (year) x index.

C. The Plaintiff participated in the bid with the highest price of KRW 148,570,00 (excluding value-added tax), which is the bid price, and was determined as a successful bidder. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a "contract on the management and operation of a public parking lot" with the Defendant, and paid in installments the amount of KRW 163,427,00 (including value-added tax).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 3 through 5, Eul's 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, while allowing the Plaintiff to take off on Sundays and holidays, set a bidding scheduled price, including Sundays and holidays, and based on this, received commission fees upon concluding a contract with the Plaintiff. The commission fees for 67 days on Sundays and holidays constitute unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment amounting to 29,98,929 won (i.e., 163,427,00 won x 67 days on Sundays and holidays x 365 days) and damages for delay.

B. The judgment is based on the fact that the estimated price calculated by the Defendant is calculated without considering Sundays and holidays, but the Ordinance, which was the basis for calculation, is merely an internal standard for calculating the estimated price, and the Defendant publicly announced on Sundays and holidays as a bidding. The Plaintiff concluded a contract with a well-known knowledge of such fact and concluded a contract for the commission fee in accordance with the contract.