1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The first instance court’s judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the construction cost that was paid in excess of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and only the Defendant appealed a judgment citing part of the claim for the return of advance payment. As such, the scope of this court’s judgment is limited to the claim

2. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) (limited to the part concerning the claim for return of advance payment) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this part is cited by the main text of Article 4

3. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) it is identical to the entry from 7th to 11th 6th 6th 7th 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications; and (b) it is also cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The term "subcontract 8" in the 9th sentence of the first instance court shall be referred to as "contract".

On January 31, 2015, the first instance court's decision of 10 pages 10, "other construction" shall be added as follows.

The following shall be added between 10 pages 5 and 6 of the first instance judgment:

According to the above-mentioned facts, the construction cost of the terminated construction may be deemed KRW 1.91 billion on the basis of around January 31, 2015, and as seen earlier, in light of the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the terminated construction immediately after the claim for the construction cost, and the cancellation of the contract of this case, barring any special circumstance, the construction cost of the terminated construction at the time of the cancellation of the contract of this case shall be presumed to be the same. The construction cost of the terminated construction shall also be deemed to be identical to the above-mentioned one. The first instance court ruling No. 10, 9, and 16, respectively.

In this regard, the defendant paid for the construction in fact at the time of the claim for the construction in question in excess of KRW 1.917 billion.3 million.

The construction cost equivalent to KRW 1,892,864,792 has been additionally paid until the contract of this case was terminated, which is based on this.