1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the first instance is to dismiss “B and the Plaintiff” of the third 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance as “B and the Defendant,” and the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(1) The Plaintiff’s ground for appeal is not significantly different from the assertion in the first instance court, and the first instance court’s finding of facts and determination are justifiable even if the evidence presented in the evidence duly examined by the first instance court was presented (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200, Feb. 1, 2001). 2. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the payment agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not acknowledged, the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not provide for the payment of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff was obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 42,90,000 calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 6,60,000,000, which was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment return, from the total amount of metal and windows supplied by the Plaintiff at the construction site of this case.

In addition, according to the above evidence and the statement Nos. 2 and 5, the defendant prepared a receipt certificate (Evidence No. 3) through the defendant's employee I, and paid KRW 6,00,000 to H as the price for the material received from the plaintiff, and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff received the material requested for production to put it into the construction site of this case and paid KRW 29,70,000 from H as the price for the material. The plaintiff's above assertion is without need to further examine.