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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On May 28, 2013, the Plaintiff contracted the Home Packer C store located in the Home Packer C from Vienp Co., Ltd., and the said construction was completed on July 2, 2013.

B. Around July 2013, 2013, the Defendant’s husband, E and BNF Co., Ltd. entered into a sales agency contract with the content that: (a) Non-NF Co., Ltd. supplies goods to E; (b) E sells goods supplied from Non-NF E; and (c) Non-NF Co., Ltd. shall pay sales agency fees to E.

C. From July 3, 2013, E operated a D store at the Home Pler C store.

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

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff executed the interior construction for the defendant's burial, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 14,175,00 or return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the same amount as the above construction cost.

B. As found earlier, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for interior construction with the Vien Franchi Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff entered into a sales agency contract with the Vien Franchi, Co., Ltd., and operated the said D sales agency contract with the Vien Franchi, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price or claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant, who is not the party to the said tetha construction contract or the operator of the said D sales agency, is without merit, without further review.

(3) The plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.