The part against the Defendant regarding the claim for return of unjust enrichment is reversed, and this part of the case is applied.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of incidental appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court cited the judgment of the first instance court, and determined that the instant consignment contract was lawfully terminated on July 19, 2011, on the following grounds: (a) the instant consignment facility, i.e., wide range of water leakage and rupture phenomenon, drinking water corrosion, and melting green water onto the swimming pool (hereinafter “instant defect”); and (b) such defect is not limited to the extent that the Plaintiff, a trustee, could easily raise any particular cost, but rather requires large repair and repair, and thus it is not possible for the trustee to use it or make profits from it according to the purpose prescribed by the instant consignment contract; and (c) the Plaintiff, on July 19, 201, declared that the instant consignment contract was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of the repair obligation.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the degree

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the term "guarantee insurance" is a non-life insurance that provides that the insurer takes over the liability of the insured (the insurer to compensate for the loss suffered by the obligee under the main contract) due to the nonperformance by a policyholder (the obligor under the main contract) who has any legal relationship with the insured, and formally aims at the same effect as the guaranty insurance contract with the nature of the obligor's default as an insured event.