1. Defendant B’s KRW 2,33,557 as well as 5% per annum from December 20, 2017 to May 10, 2019, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2017, the Plaintiff decided to newly construct a detached house on the ground of 1,412 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-si owned by D, Youngcheon-si, and concluded a construction contract with Defendant B, a constructor, on the said construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 84 million from April 4, 2017 to Defendant C’s account in the name of Defendant C, and the same month.

8. On May 29, 2017, after receiving a transfer of KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff’s account to the Plaintiff’s account, the Plaintiff wired KRW 46 million from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant C’s account, and paid the construction price of KRW 90 million in total to Defendant B.

C. From July 7, 2017 to the same year

9.1. up to 9.1. up to three occasions, Defendant B paid a total of KRW 60 million.

Defendant B started the instant construction work on June 2017 and obtained approval for the use of the said detached house from the Youngcheon Market around September 5, 2017, and the Plaintiff completed registration of the preservation of ownership on October 16, 2017 on the ground of 1,412 square meters before Yongcheon-si, Youngcheon-si, the Plaintiff completed registration of the preservation of ownership on the 98.96 square meters of a single-story detached house (hereinafter “instant house”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to the new construction cost of the instant housing at KRW 90 million (3 million per square year x 30 square year).

However, the Plaintiff paid the construction cost of KRW 150 million at the request of the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants, who received 60 million won in excess of the agreed construction cost, should jointly and severally return the said KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

In addition, there is a defect that requires KRW 20,808,601 for the repair of the housing of this case. The defendants jointly and severally as the defect repair amount to the plaintiff.