1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 4, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff awarded a contract for C Daegu Factory Extension to the Defendant with the following content:

(hereinafter “instant construction project”). Contract amount: KRW 128 million (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) The method of the payment of the construction cost: The period of construction of the down payment of KRW 40 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 48 million, the remainder of KRW 48 million, the remainder of KRW 30 million: 90 days after the contract was made: If the contract violates the payment period, the amount equivalent to 1/1000 of the construction price for the delayed one day shall be deducted from the payment price for the delayed one day, in cases where the contract violates the payment period.

B. Around September 19, 2015, the Defendant unilaterally suspended construction works on the part of the instant construction, which the Defendant performed while commencing the sand position panel construction in November 2015. At the time of suspension, the period of the Defendant’s construction work constitutes 40%.

C. By April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 88 million out of the instant construction cost.

[Evidence Evidence] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 24 million out of the construction cost overpaid to the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff paid KRW 88 million out of the construction cost of the instant case, merely 40% of the Defendant’s fair interest rate, and the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 24 million out of the construction cost overpaid to the Plaintiff. 2) In addition, the Defendant was merely 40% at the time of the discontinuance of the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 88 million out of the construction cost of the instant case to the Defendant as recognized earlier. As such, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant excessive construction cost (the first construction cost is KRW 128 million, as the first construction cost is KRW 128 million) compared to the Defendant’s flag.

Therefore, the defendant seeks the plaintiff from among the construction cost that the plaintiff paid to the plaintiff excessively after the date of occurrence of unjust enrichment.