1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “3. additional determination” as to the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion as being additionally submitted by this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which stated that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, 9 to 10, 9, i.e., “Judgment as to the legitimacy of the supervision fee of 2.70 million won and the part concerning the claim for damages for delay,” is reversed as follows.

2. Determination as to the claim for refund of KRW 270 million as supervision fees

A. Although the Plaintiff asserted on September 12, 2007 paid KRW 300 million to the Defendant under the name of supervision service costs for the first or fourth contracts, the Defendant did not pay KRW 30 million to the secondary mining engineering supervisor at the supervision cost, and did not pay KRW 270 million to the remainder.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the difference of KRW 270 million (i.e., supervision service cost paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant - KRW 300 million paid by the Defendant to the secondary engineering - the Defendant’s compensation for delay as unjust enrichment.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, around May 22, 2009, the Plaintiff included the payment of KRW 300 million in the name of supervision expenses, among KRW 12,508,925,419 of the sales price of the instant land allotted by the recompense for development outlay that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant as the payment for the completed portion, KRW 5,986,595,441 of the loan under the name of the return of the loan (hereinafter “loan amount”).

In other words, the plaintiff's claim for the return of KRW 270 million for this part of the supervision fees is seeking unjust enrichment for part of the borrowed money that the plaintiff paid to the defendant.

The contract of this case is terminated by the defendant.