부당이득금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal:
1. (1) On October 10, 2018, the Defendant was awarded a contract from Nonparty C to KRW 1 billion (including value added taxes) of the construction cost for the construction of a kindergarten to be newly built in D in the period of harmony.
On November 26, 2018, the Defendant subcontracted fire-fighting system installation works to Nonparty E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) at KRW 89,100,000 (including value added tax) during the said construction works (hereinafter “instant subcontract”), and the written contract (Evidence No. 1) (hereinafter “instant subcontract”), “The subcontract price of KRW 89,100,000,000,000 to Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) shall be paid directly to Nonparty Co., Ltd., pursuant to Article 35(2) of the Framework Act on Construction Industry.
(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff concluded a service agreement on behalf of the Defendant for the following reasons: (a) with respect to the construction of a kindergarten at issue, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C with respect to the construction of a new kindergarten (hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”); (b) the design and construction of a arche design; (c) the process of authorization and permission necessary for the establishment and operation of a kindergarten; (d) the completion of construction and administrative procedures for the opening of a semester in January 2019; (e) lending and linkage related to the payment of the construction cost; and (v) funding support (the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s payment on behalf of the Defendant is one of the “financial support”).
(3) On February 15, 2019, the Plaintiff paid to the non-party company KRW 25 million, which is part of the subcontract price set forth in the instant subcontract agreement between the Defendant and the non-party company (which seems not to have been requested by the Plaintiff). At that time, the construction of a kindergarten (including fire-fighting system installation) was completed.
(4) The above facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of all pleadings.
2. In determining the Plaintiff’s claim (1), first of all, we examine whether the Defendant is obligated to pay the subcontract price of KRW 89.1 million to the non-party company.
1) this.