1. All appeals by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the preliminary claims added at the trial are dismissed.

2.In the trial, the trial shall be held.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for adding the following paragraphs 2 and 3 to the conjunctive main claim that the Plaintiff added at the trial of the first instance, and the counterclaim claim that the Defendant Company raised at the trial of the first instance, and thus, citing the reasoning of the judgment in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendants as the instant construction cost and value-added tax of KRW 60 million, and paid KRW 40 million to the Defendants in excess of the value-added tax to be actually paid (hereinafter “instant money”). Therefore, this should be returned to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. Moreover, the Defendants agreed to return the instant money to the Plaintiff on January 9, 2017 by the end of March, 2017, and thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million with unjust enrichment or agreed money and delay damages therefrom.

B. According to Gap evidence No. 11, the plaintiff, defendant B, and D discussed about the return of the money in this case at the same time on January 9, 2017. At that time, defendant D stated that "it would return value-added tax 40 million won, and be resolved until March 2017." However, the above evidence and the response of the first instance court's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H association's H financial transaction information submission order as a result of the first instance court's inquiry and the whole arguments's reasoning were examined as follows. In full view of the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff paid the construction price in this case's total of KRW 60 million and KRW 21,500,000,000 won and KRW 70,000,000 won.