부당이득금반환
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 156,155,352 as well as 5% per annum from April 27, 2014 to August 31, 2016.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. In around 2012, the Defendants, a construction company, jointly concluded a contract for the construction of a new building C in the Young-dong and Chungcheongbuk-gun B (hereinafter “instant construction”).
B. First, in the construction of the instant framework, the construction company, etc. (hereinafter “Yancheon Construction”) performed the construction by entering into a subcontract for the instant framework, and the construction company, as from March 11, 2013, Phee Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Shee Construction”) followed the status of the construction.
The Plaintiff entered into a contract for temporary re-lease in sequence with the construction of acheon Day, Shee Construction, and supplied temporary materials at the construction site of this case.
C. On October 22, 2013, as the subcontract agreement with the Defendants was terminated, the construction was suspended without having materials, etc. at the construction site and the field manpower was removed.
From that time, the Defendants directly continued the instant construction and completed the construction work on June 2014, and used the Plaintiff’s materials at the instant construction site until April 26, 2014 when the roof cancellation work was completed.
On July 2014, the Plaintiff collected all the materials remaining at the construction site of this case.
[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. As to the claim for unjust enrichment equivalent to the material use fee
A. According to the above acknowledged facts, the Defendants were obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the usage fees incurred from the possession and use of the temporary materials from October 23, 2013 to April 26, 2014 pursuant to Articles 201(2) and 748 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53806, Dec. 11, 2001). 2) As to the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants violated the good faith principle, the Defendants did not take any measure against the Plaintiff even though the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to remove the materials, and rather, due to the storage of the unnecessary materials.