A. Around October 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for a construction project with the contract period of KRW 22,700,000 for the construction cost of the remodelling project that installs shower documents, boiler equipment, etc. (hereinafter “instant construction project”) with the Defendant on the ground-based land C in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

B. The instant construction contract established the name and amount of the quotation as follows.

The name name value of KRW 5,500,000, 1700,000 for boiler facilities of KRW 3,500,000 for electricity of KRW 1,200,000 for 4,500,000 for the roof board of KRW 900,500 for the type of wood of KRW 2,500,000 for the length of KRW 2,500 for the length of 2,500,000 for the length of 2,500,000 for the length of KRW 2,50,000 for the length of waste of KRW 20,000 for the length of 20,000 for the length of waste of KRW 20,000 for the length of 20,00 for the length of 20,000 for the

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the construction price of KRW 5,00,000 on October 24, 2012, and KRW 1,000,000 on October 25, 201 of the same year, and KRW 10,000,000 on October 29 of the same year, respectively, and KRW 5,00,000 on November 5, 11 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) The Plaintiff did not perform the instant construction work at all despite the Defendant’s receipt of the construction cost, thereby unjust enrichment of KRW 21,00,000,000, and thus, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 21,300,000 and the damages for delay thereof. 2) As to this, the Defendant suspended the instant construction work while carrying out the removal work and electric distribution work, etc., which was conducted by the Defendant. This is because the Plaintiff was entrusted with the sobrying construction work operated by the Plaintiff and the Seo-gu-gu Seoul District Housing Repair Corporation and the Plaintiff’s Dor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim was without merit.

B. The prepaid construction cost that the contractor pays to the contractor the prepaid construction cost in advance is not the construction cost paid in relation to the specific period of payment.