공사대금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
3. The plaintiff.
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where “20,000,000 won” in Part 7 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as “25,00,000 won”; and (b) such part is cited as it is in accordance
2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claim under the following paragraphs (a) and (b) is selectively asserted.
The Plaintiff filed a claim for construction cost under the instant construction contract, and the construction was completed, and the total construction cost of KRW 538,00,000,000, including the additional settlement amount, was paid only KRW 287,974,366, and the remainder of KRW 250,025,634, which was not paid. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 250,025,634.
B. Co-Defendant B, C, and D of the first instance court’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment or compensation for damages: (a) paid part of the construction price to the Defendant; and (b) returned the construction price to the Plaintiff by re-returning it; and (c) the Defendant also participated and divided a part of the construction price; (b) therefore, the Defendant is liable to return the said payment of the construction price as unjust enrichment or pay the compensation for tort.
3. Determination
A. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff completed the instant construction contract only with the statement of subparagraph 3 of the claim for construction cost claim Gap, and that the Plaintiff reached KRW 250,025,634 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the construction cost, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
The plaintiff's above claim is rejected.
B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to return unjust enrichment or claim for damages alone is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The plaintiff's above claim is rejected.
4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant should be dismissed as it is without merit.
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant is different from this conclusion.