1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal of some content as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third second written judgment of the court of first instance is referred to as the " July 25, 2017" as the " July 25, 2016."

The 5th written judgment of the first instance court refers to the 3th written judgment of the first instance as "h.".

The details of the 5th to 9th 7th am of the first instance judgment are as follows.

In the meantime, on January 21, 2020, Defendant C was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution due to the crime committed by deceiving the Plaintiff on January 21, 202, and by deceiving the Plaintiff in the 1,283,100 won of the construction cost by deceiving the Plaintiff, and by deceiving 131,450,000 won, and was sentenced to a conviction of two years of suspended execution, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “related criminal case”).

(i) "";

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant Company received a total of KRW 3,285,628,60,00 from the Plaintiff even though the construction cost to be paid under the instant contract was KRW 2,85,628,60, and thus, it shall return the difference of KRW 429,639,920 as unjust enrichment. The Defendant Company shall also pay the difference of KRW 567,968,166,166 for delayed construction work. 2) The Defendant Company, by deceiving the Plaintiff, obtained the difference of the construction cost of KRW 429,639,920 due to the tort, thereby paying the Plaintiff the above KRW 429,639,920 as compensation for damages and interest at a rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act.

3) Preliminary assertion related to the Defendant Company’s obligation to return unjust enrichment. If the content of the instant contract was invalid or revoked, as alleged by the Defendants, the Defendant Company should return the entire amount of the construction payment already received from the Plaintiff to its original state. B. The Defendants’ assertion 1) Plaintiff and the Defendant Company raised the unit price of the instant contract in 4,000 won per 1 cubic meter.