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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who performs construction work such as windows and steel, and the Defendants are married with a couple who operates laundry at the Won-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D shop.

B. On June 1, 2016, the Defendants’ laundry caused damage to the said laundry and its neighboring stores, such as beauty rooms, phrases stores, and licensed real estate agents (hereinafter “instant four stores”) by including the said four stores.

C. The Defendants received delegation from the shop owners of the instant case regarding the restoration work of the instant store due to the said fire, except for laundry, and requested the Plaintiff to implement the construction work, and the Plaintiff completed the restoration work on July 6, 2016 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The Defendants paid the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 in total with the construction cost of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 5, video of Gap evidence 4, witness E's testimony, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was unable to agree with the Plaintiff in advance after the completion of the instant construction work. Accordingly, the Defendants settled the costs incurred by the Plaintiff with the insurance proceeds, etc., and even though the Plaintiff paid KRW 92,346,00 for the instant construction work, only KRW 60,00 as seen earlier, the Defendants received only KRW 32,346,00 as the instant construction cost. As such, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants were liable to return unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 32,346,00 (= 92,346,000 – 60,000) - 60,000 (i.e., KRW 92,895,000) after the closing of the argument, the Plaintiff submitted an application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of claim with the Defendants to the effect that the instant construction cost was KRW 92,895,00,000 with the Plaintiff’s store.