Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of the land C and D (hereinafter “instant land”), and the Defendant is the representative of the E architect office.

B. In early 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a design and construction supervision agreement with the Defendant on the construction of neighborhood living facilities on the instant land (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. The Defendant has designed the above neighborhood living facilities. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 32 million on or around June 7, 2002, KRW 10 million on or around November 14, 2002, KRW 2 million on or around November 14, 2002, KRW 1 million on or around January 20, 2003, and KRW 7 million on or around December 31, 2003, and the design cost among them is KRW 19.6 million.

The construction of the site on the instant land was delayed until September 2006, and the Defendant issued and delivered a certificate of renunciation of supervision to the Plaintiff on September 2006 prior to the commencement of construction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant contract was concluded on September 2006 prior to the commencement of construction works, and it was recognized that the Defendant did not perform construction supervision up to that point, and accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return the supervision fees of KRW 12.4 million (=32 million - 19.6 million) received from the Plaintiff to its original state, barring special circumstances.

Since the defendant defenses that the above claim of the plaintiff was extinguished by the statute of limitations, the above claim occurred around September 2006 since the contract of this case was terminated, and the defendant is a merchant who registered the business with the trade name of E certified architect and engaged in the certified architect's business. Thus, the contract of this case where the defendant, who is the merchant, is a party to a transaction, is a commercial activity, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment occurred based on the contract corresponding to commercial activity.