1. The Defendant’s KRW 164,427,620 as well as 6% per annum from March 21, 2015 to April 12, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

The cause of the instant claim is as shown in the separate sheet, and there is no dispute as to the facts of the cause, and further, according to the respective statements of Gap 1, 2, and 3, the reason why the Plaintiff lost in the lawsuit of indemnity claim filed against Eul et al. is that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant exists, i.e., the payment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant did not exist from the beginning. Thus, the payment is unjust regardless of the circumstances, barring special circumstances.

In addition, inasmuch as the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, not a party to the subcontract, as the performance guarantee obligor, cannot be deemed to constitute a non-payment in conformity with the concept of intention under Article 744 of the Civil Act, and the Defendant’s participation in the claim for reimbursement from the early stage of the claim for reimbursement to the Plaintiff, there is no room to apply Article 745(1) of the Civil Act concerning the repayment of another’s obligation or Article 748(1) concerning the scope of return of

Therefore, we decide to accept the Plaintiff’s claim of this case and decide as per Disposition.