부당이득금반환
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows: (a) each of the "Appraisers" in the 3th, 12 and 5th, 16th, 3th, 3th, 3th, 13 as "Experts of the court of first instance"; and (b) the judgment of the court of first instance particularly emphasized by the defendant at the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the argument that the defendant emphasizes in the court of first instance as described in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it
2. The addition;
A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant construction project was inevitably suspended due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral order of discontinuance of construction, but the instant secondary contract does not have been rescinded, and rather, the Plaintiff may rescind the instant secondary contract pursuant to Article 673 of the Civil Act. As such, the Defendant shall compensate the Defendant for the Defendant’s damages pursuant to Article 673 of the Civil Act, and even if the instant secondary contract was rescinded, the Defendant does not have to return the construction price already received in relation to the scope of restitution.
In the case of this case, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 6 (including the number of each unit number), each of which is considered comprehensive to the purport of the entire pleadings, the execution process and progress of the second contract, the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant related to the construction cost, and the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant related to the construction cost, after the construction of this case was interrupted, the plaintiff entered into a construction contract directly with Eul and completed the remaining construction work, and if the construction of this case was unilaterally interrupted by the plaintiff by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was appointed by the defendant, and it would not be easy for the plaintiff to directly contract the remaining construction of this case to Eul. The defendant was well aware that all the plaintiff and C were aware of it, and the defendant was the plaintiff and the defendant.