1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the counterclaims by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff, the part of the enforcement cost claim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff operating hospital interior decoration and furniture design business, etc., and the Defendant, from September 2014, was in school with male and female relations.

The Plaintiff, due to bad credit standing, requested the Defendant from December 2014 to proceed with hospital interior works by using the business registration of the business chain in the name of the Defendant, upon request of the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff, while carrying out the Rotterdam Corporation, managed the deposit and withdrawal of the construction cost, expenses, etc. using a bank account in the name of the Defendant and a bank account in the name of the Defendant. From December 2, 2014 to October 2015, the balance of the construction cost, etc. that the Defendant has to pay to the Plaintiff is KRW 158,272,240.

C. The amount that the Plaintiff is liable to pay to the Defendant with respect to the progress of hospital interior construction by using the above business registration under the name of the Defendant is ① 40,000,000 won for household expenses (including KRW 10,00,000 for household expenses in 2014), ② value-added tax of KRW 83,341,818, ③ global income tax of KRW 41,670,909, ④ total construction expenses paid by the Defendant to E Co., Ltd., KRW 28,202,940, ⑤ total construction expenses paid by the Defendant to E Co., Ltd., ⑤ totaled KRW 253,030,56,320.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 13, 28, 30 through 32 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant principal claim. The Plaintiff asserted that the amount that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff is the total sum of KRW 268,687,924, as the difference in the construction cost and expenses deposited and withdrawn from the Defendant’s corporate bank and the deposit account in D Bank with respect to the foregoing hospital’s interior construction work is the compensation for damages arising from unjust enrichment return or tort.