공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (including each number), respectively.
The Plaintiff is a construction business entity, and Defendant C is the owner of a 633 square meters, 631 square meters prior to F, G, 1,321 square meters prior to G, 201 square meters prior to H, 367 square meters prior to I and 4,489 square meters prior to J (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant lands”), and Defendant B is the husband of Defendant C.
On the other hand, D completed business registration with the trade name of "N," and discontinued its business on November 28, 2013.
B. From March 4, 2015 to March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the construction of a retaining wall with a total of 445 square meters of the construction area in each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant retaining wall construction”).
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. As the owner of each of the instant lands, Defendant C, as the owner of each of the instant lands, conferred the right to enter into the instant retaining wall construction contract with Defendant B and D, and accordingly, the contract was concluded with Defendant B and D by concluding an agreement with the construction cost of KRW 100,000 per 1 square meter, and completed the instant retaining wall construction. As such, Defendant C, as the contractor under the said contract, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 44,50,000 (445 square meters x 100,000 per 1 square meter).
Even if Defendant C cannot be deemed as the contractor of the contract for retaining wall construction of this case, Defendant C as the owner of each of the instant lands, and upon completion of the construction of retaining wall construction of this case from each of the instant lands, obtained profits equivalent to the cost of retaining wall construction of this case without any legal ground, and thereby suffered damages equivalent to the same amount as the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C was unjust enrichment.