부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The Defendant, the owner of the Plaintiff’s assertion, paid only KRW 30,000,000 out of the construction cost of KRW 48,360,000 to the Plaintiff, which is a construction business operator, and did not pay KRW 15,270,000, excluding KRW 3,090,000, out of the remainder of the construction cost
Therefore, the defendant should return 15,270,000 won to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
2. Determination
A. The facts of recognition (1) was established on October 29, 2003, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2003da8757 (main office) and the damages case of 2003dadan27536 (Counterclaim), and on October 29, 2003, the mediation of the following purport: “The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 36,50,000,000 to the Plaintiff, who shall be paid KRW 30,000,000 until October 31, 2003, and KRW 6,50,000,000 by the date of completion of the Plaintiff’s defect repair (hereinafter “instant mediation”).
(2) On October 31, 2003, the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2003 following the instant conciliation, and on August 16, 2005, the Defendant deposited KRW 6,500,000 for the Plaintiff’s repair of defects in the construction work as payment for the Plaintiff’s repair of defects.
(3) On November 6, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the instant conciliation on the ground of denying the validity of the instant conciliation, and thereafter, the Plaintiff did not object to the instant conciliation, and there were no lawsuits claiming construction price payment in this court, 2004 quasi-Ga 25, 2005, 13637, 206, 6435, 2007, 51759, 2009, 2084, 2010, 2010, 2011, 3737, 2011, 201, 202, 6210, 621041, 204, 2012, 2012, 18401, 201, 2012, 2013, 2013, 2015, 2013, 2015, 2035, 2015, 2035, 2537
All of the lawsuits shall be dismissed or dismissed on the grounds that it conflicts with res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment.