A. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a new ground neighborhood living facility (hereinafter “instant construction”), including the following purport:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). - The Defendant shall start and complete the instant construction on February 21, 2014 and before June 20, 2014.

- The cost of construction shall be 130 million won (excluding value-added tax) and shall be 40 million won for civil engineering works and 90 million won for construction works.

- Additional burdensd by the Plaintiff upon the occurrence of an excess of the construction cost after civil works and construction works - Han deposit, water supply volume, groundwater, and sewage contributions, separate - Other construction works other than the drawings (pre-public notice later settlement);

B. The Plaintiff: (a) around February 18, 2014; (b) around February 18, 2014; and (c) the same year to the Defendant.

2. 24. Minority: 30 million won, and the same year; and

3. Around 27.27.20 million won and around August of the same year 4 million won were paid.

C. The Defendant continued the instant construction in accordance with the instant contract, and suspended the instant construction around 2014, and the instant contract was now terminated.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' major arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant’s height ratio of the instant construction project undertaken is only 10% of the civil construction work and 60% of the construction work.

The construction cost that the defendant is entitled to receive as the price for the work is equivalent to 58 million won [(40 million won for the agreed civil construction works x 0.1) (90 million won for the agreed construction works x 0.6).

The Defendant received 84 million won in total from the Plaintiff (i.e., 30 million won, 20 million won, 4 million won in total).

The defendant makes an unjust enrichment of 20 million won, which is the difference.

(2) The defendant asserts that the construction cost, additional construction cost, etc. are sought, but the defendant has not completed the construction work in this case.