The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judgment of the first instance court 2 pages 8 of the judgment "E apartment" is raised as "I apartment."

The first instance judgment 3 pages 1, 2 - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1, 2, 5, 6, 27, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s temporary materials owner, the Defendant used and profit from the temporary materials for about four months from the end of October 2016 to February 2017, which was after the subcontract was terminated between F and F.

As a result, the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the loss of the temporary materials during the above period, and the defendant has gained the same profit.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff KRW 105,276,200, which is the amount equivalent to the damages of the temporary materials for a period of four months.

2) The Plaintiff spent total of KRW 17,200,000 from November 201, 2016 to February 201, 2017 for the work of dismantling temporary materials in the construction site. The Plaintiff spent KRW 9,190,000 in total from December 2016 to February 2017 as the sn beam beamline transportation cost and wage.

Since the Plaintiff’s payment of the above wage, etc. is due to the Defendant’s order to dismantle or remove temporary materials, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 26,390,000.

Even if the Defendant did not order the Plaintiff to remove, the Defendant did not pay the cost of dismantling the temporary materials upon the termination of the subcontract agreement with F, and the Plaintiff spent the amount equivalent to the wages of the demolition of the temporary materials, so the Defendant should return the profits, such as wages incurred in dismantling the temporary materials, as unjust gains.

B. 1) The evidence and evidence No. 4 and No. 7, which were incurred prior to the determination of the portion of the cost of the temporary material.