A. The Plaintiff performed a “construction project to improve the entrance of the 6 national line to a place where frequent accidents occurred in the vicinity of the 6 line oil station” (hereinafter “instant construction”). At the time, Defendant A engaged in general restaurant business (D), and Defendant B engaged in resting restaurant business, retail store business, etc. (Ecafeteria, F store, etc.) at the same place.

B. On October 20, 2013, the Defendants filed a claim against the Plaintiff for business loss compensation on the ground that the instant construction was suspended (the grounds for the suspension of entry: the prevention of entry). On November 2013, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendants on the business loss compensation for the period of suspension (from November 7, 2011 to January 6, 201) (hereinafter “instant agreement”), as follows, with the Defendants (hereinafter “instant agreement”). On December 2, 2013, the Defendants paid the Defendant KRW 28.6 million, and the Defendant B paid the Defendant KRW 19.5 million compensation (hereinafter “instant compensation”).

Where the amount of compensation is to be recovered from the total amount or the difference paid after the contract is terminated, modified, erroneously paid or other reasons after Defendant A 28.6 million won and Defendant B 19.65 million won, the Defendants shall return the amount to the Plaintiff within 30 days from the date of notice issued by the Plaintiff, and where the amount is not returned within 30 days from the date of notice, the Defendants shall return the amount by adding the penalty of 5% per month to the Plaintiff.

C. However, as the Defendants opened and continued to conduct a simple entry route even during the period of suspension, the Plaintiff decided to recover the instant compensation from the Defendants, and sent a written claim for the return of compensation to the Defendants around August 25, 2014, and the said written statement was served on the Defendants on August 26, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment above, Defendant A is the Plaintiff’s KRW 28.6 million, Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s KRW 19.65 million, and each of them is the following day of the payment period determined by the instant compensatory agreement.