부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and such reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
2. From the third page of the judgment of the first instance, the part added or added "3,745,00 won for additional recognition" was added to "273,745,00 won for additional recognition and 50,000 won for unpaid value-added tax". The part added or added "323,745,000 won for additional recognition and 50,000 won for unpaid value-added tax."
Part 4 of the first instance judgment was pronounced "," and the second instance judgment added "A plaintiff appealed against A (Seoul High Court 2014Na41133), but withdrawal of appeal on June 18, 2015."
Part 4 of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment was affirmed through the second and the third instance judgment, and the second instance judgment was determined as it is, “A prosecutor appealed against A (Seoul Central District Court 2014No1893), but the prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed on September 26, 2014, and the prosecutor re-appealed on April 23, 2015 (Supreme Court 2014Do13650), and as the appeal was dismissed on April 23, 2015, the second instance judgment was finalized at that time (hereinafter “related criminal case”).”
Nos. 4, 11 through 16 of the first instance judgment, "the plaintiff's assertion is without merit."
“The Plaintiff, with respect to the amount of KRW 824,00,00,00 in the separate accounts of each of the instant additional accounts and the amount of KRW 824,00,00 in the other accounts stated in the construction agreement, was actually carried out by the Defendant, most of the construction works actually carried out by the Defendant are identical to the details indicated in the additional construction specifications, and except that, if calculating the construction cost, it would have been known to KRW 100,000,00 in the aggregate construction cost. The Defendant, without providing any explanation on what the construction cost is, and how the unit cost would be, without providing any detailed statement on the details of the construction work. The Defendant, without providing any explanation on the details of the construction work, had implicitly enticed the Plaintiff as KRW 824,00,00 in the separate accounts of the instant additional works.