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

A. On May 17, 2014, the Defendant, as a contractor, concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) that newly constructs the entire house to the construction cost of KRW 47 million on the land of the contractor (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) and the construction cost of KRW 47 million on the land of the Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu (Seoul) (hereinafter “instant construction cost”).

B. D wired the total amount of KRW 18 million to the deposit account of NonEL integrated Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NonEL integrated Construction”) on November 11, 2014 and KRW 13 million on November 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) paid the Plaintiff KRW 43 million in total as the construction price of the instant case in the amount of KRW 5 million on November 11, 2014; (b) KRW 18 million on December 12, 2014; and (c) KRW 300,000 on December 8, 2014; and (d) KRW 43 million on December 12, 2014.

In addition, at the request of the Lao Plus, KRW 13 million out of the said money was transferred directly to D to the deposit account of non-EL integrated construction.

As a result, the defendant exempted the payment of the construction cost of this case from KRW 43 million.

Therefore, the Defendant ought to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 43 million and delay damages from January 13, 2015, which were one month after the date of the last payment due to the repayment of the loan or the return of unjust enrichment.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence prior to the judgment, the evidence of this case alone paid KRW 43 million to the NAo Plus.

It is insufficient to recognize that the payment was made at the request of the defendant or as the subject of the payment of the construction price in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

① The Plaintiff borrowed money from D, and thus, to Nino Plus.