1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, this part of the basic facts is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Determination on the plaintiff's claim

A. A. On September 2014, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the construction of Samsan General Construction was contracted from the co-owners of the instant apartment building to complete the construction work by the method of final shares.

As one of the co-owners of this case, the Defendant acquired the apartment 501 of this case’s apartment settlement amount to the Plaintiff KRW 846,375,000 (i.e., KRW 40,500,000 interest on loans of KRW 274,000,000 (= Defendant’s contribution of KRW 40,500,000) for the Defendant’s moving expenses of KRW 60,000 for the moving expenses of KRW 60,000 for the moving expenses of KRW 7,142,00 for the financial services of KRW 6,460,00 for the preservation registration expenses of KRW 18,273,000 for the additional construction expenses of KRW 6,460,00 for the moving expenses of KRW 18,273,00 for the settlement of accounts, but the Defendant withdrawn only KRW 75,000,000 for the above settlement amount to the Plaintiff from the deposit account of Korea 21365,286.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 96,375,00 (=846,375,000) and the amount of KRW 135,00,000 out of the amount of unauthorized Withdrawal and the amount of KRW 231,375,00,000, as well as damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the dispute as alleged by the Plaintiff

The evidence submitted on the fact that the settlement amount that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 750 million that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant, and that the Defendant withdraws KRW 135,222,860 from the deposit account in the name of the Korea Investment Savings Bank in the name of the Korea Investment Savings Bank without permission is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

On the other hand, the first instance court is a joint project proprietor who is the plaintiff and the trilified Construction.