1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On September 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the construction cost was KRW 1,500,000 with the Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into a repair work contract with the Kimpo-si C building B (the total number of households: 8) as sewage pipes.

On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred 562,500 won, which is the shares of C building B, 301, 302, and 402, to the Defendant’s account.

However, even though the above Corporation was a construction project amounting to 400,000 won, the defendant received the construction cost by withdrawing the construction cost.

In addition, due to the failure to complete or defect of the construction, such as the problem of the construction method implemented by the defendant, the repair work was implemented again at Kimpo-si around October 22, 2014.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 412,500,000, which is the share of the Plaintiff’s three households, out of the remainder of KRW 1,100,000, excluding the adequate construction cost of KRW 400,000, as compensation for damages arising from unjust enrichment or tort.

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was a party to the construction contract, but it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s each of the descriptions in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2 of Article 1-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, all claims based on the premise that the plaintiff is a party to the construction contract are without merit.

B. Even if it is assumed that the above C-building 8 householder, including the plaintiff, entered into a construction contract with the defendant, the excessive portion of the construction cost received by the defendant cannot be deemed unjust, solely on the ground that the construction contract is more effective, and ② the defendant cannot seek compensation for tort on the grounds that there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff et al. was deceiving in relation to the construction cost during the construction contract formation process. ③ The images of the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4, 8, 9, and 10, respectively, and the fact-finding on the Kimpo-si case.