1. The appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) A and the plaintiff B (including the claim extended at the trial of the plaintiff B) and the appeal.

1. The plaintiff A, upon receiving a request from the defendant to repair the house leased by him, tried to repair the above house. As the defendant paid the total of KRW 209,000, labor cost of KRW 100,000, and construction material cost of KRW 159,000 on behalf of the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A the amount of KRW 468,00,00 and delay damages for the return of unjust enrichment. However, although the evidence submitted by the plaintiff A alone is insufficient to acknowledge this, the plaintiff A's above assertion is not reasonable.

2. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning the defendant's counterclaim against the plaintiff A is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the defendant added "No. 52 Eul submitted at the court of first instance" to the part of No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance [based on recognition] of No. 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the "a rape was committed" to the part of No. 8 of the judgment of the court of second instance, and "a rape was committed or sexual intercourse was committed against the will". Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence

3. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning the claim of the plaintiff B is as stated in Paragraph (3) of the first instance court's decision, except for adding "(the plaintiff Eul filed a false complaint against the plaintiff Eul due to defamation or rape for the purpose of having the plaintiff A be subject to criminal punishment, and caused property damage, such as causing the plaintiff Gap to travel with the plaintiff Gap while traveling with the plaintiff Gap, and causing the plaintiff A to incur losses to property. While the defendant asserted that the plaintiff Eul had a duty to compensate for the plaintiff Eul's mental damage caused by the above tort, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff Eul alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it)", since it is the same as stated in Paragraph (3) of the first instance court's decision pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

4...