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

On the other hand, around January 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Defendant to subcontract the production and installation of a waste acid tank (luminous) HGL Pick C and a Fumbber production and installation, which was contracted by C with the Defendant. Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 47,827,550 to the Defendant for repair of defects in the above products produced and installed by the Defendant, the Defendant is liable to pay the said amount to the Plaintiff in compensation for damages.

Preliminaryly, if the other party who entered into the above subcontract is not the defendant, the defendant is obligated to return the above amount to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, since the defendant received the above amount of KRW 59,290,000 from the plaintiff without any legal ground, and thereby, thereby making profits to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. On the other hand, each of the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the other party who entered into a subcontract for the above goods is the defendant. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of each of the evidence submitted by the defendant and witness D's testimony, the other party who entered into the above contract is not the defendant but E.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit to further examine.

B. We examine the conjunctive argument, and in this case, where the above E did not separately claim the price under the above subcontract against the plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff suffered any loss due to the plaintiff's above payment to the defendant, and further, in full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the witness D's testimony, it is reasonable to view that the defendant paid the remainder other than value-added tax, etc. among the above price, and therefore, the defendant obtained any benefit.