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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On February 12, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into and implemented the construction contract. (1) On February 12, 2007, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

3) Among new construction works, the construction cost of machinery and equipment was KRW 835,000,000, and the construction cost of fire-fighting equipment and facilities was each awarded in KRW 280,000,000 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

2) The new apartment construction corporation of this case was suspended on December 2007 due to the Plaintiff’s financial difficulties.

Although the Defendant claimed that the construction was continued from the first instance court to June 2008, the construction was deemed to have been substantially interrupted on December 2007 in light of the current status of the introduction of materials and the current status of the construction progress as indicated in the supervision quarterly (Evidence A8 and 17). It is difficult to recognize that the construction was continued solely on the basis that some of the purchase price of materials was settled after the suspension date.

Meanwhile, from June 14, 2007 to June 13, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 393,965,600 to the Defendant as the price for the instant construction project.

B. On June 23, 2011, the Defendant, upon which the instant payment order was finalized, filed an application for the payment order (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 201 tea6751, hereinafter “instant payment order”) against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the unpaid construction cost of KRW 721,034,40, and damages for delay thereof, and the payment order issued on July 11, 201, became final and conclusive on August 23, 2011.

C. C’s repayment, etc. 1) On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking the return of unjust enrichment (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2015Gahap1009). On January 27, 2016, the Defendant succeeded to KRW 80,000,000, out of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against C with the executory title, upon receipt of a claim attachment and assignment order (Seoul Branch Court Decision 2016Na2018195, Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na13032, supra) and the order became final and conclusive.

On February 9, 2017, the appellate court rendered a judgment on February 9, 2017 to the plaintiff 80,000.