1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to construct a provisional building (containers; hereinafter “instant provisional building”) on the ground of the land in Gyeyang-gu Seoyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant provisional building”) (hereinafter “instant construction”).

However, the instant building had to pay the overdue electricity charges for the instant construction because it was severeded due to the delinquency in payment of electricity charges. On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 300,000 of the construction cost and KRW 317,400 in total, and KRW 617,400 in total, to the Defendant on April 29, 2016.

However, the defendant paid 308,610 won of the electricity fee in arrears, and the construction of this case was not entirely implemented for not less than 3 years despite the plaintiff's demand.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the above construction cost of KRW 300,000 and the above construction cost of KRW 8,790, which was unjustly paid by the Plaintiff in excess of the above construction cost of KRW 317,40 (=308,610) and the total amount of KRW 308,790, and to pay damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 617,400 to the Defendant regarding the instant construction project, and the fact that the Defendant used KRW 308,790 among them for the purpose of paying unpaid electric charges for the instant building, is either not in dispute between the parties or may be acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire pleadings to the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 6, 1, 2, and 3.

However, the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings at each description or image of evidence Nos. 1 through 7, namely, ① the Defendant was also the Plaintiff who paid the unpaid electricity fee for the instant building. However, if the instant construction is not carried out, the Defendant cannot find any grounds for paying the unpaid electricity fee for the instant building. ② The instant building was subject to the imposition of the electricity fee for the instant building from April 2016 upon the Plaintiff’s request for the instant construction until January 2017, which was re-issued to the unpaid electricity fee. As such, the instant building can be used for electricity.