1. Defendant B’s KRW 67,880,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 20% from July 13, 2006 to September 30, 2015.

1. Where there is no dispute between the parties to the part part of the defendant B, or where the plaintiff did not receive 67,880,000 won for the construction work even after the plaintiff performed the construction work against the defendant B, in full view of the purport of the whole argument in the statement in subparagraph 1, the above court applied for a payment order of the above construction work payment order issued by the Daegu District Court around April 4, 2006 to order the payment order issued by the Daegu District Court around 2006 to pay the above construction work amount of KRW 67,880,7387 and the above court issued a payment order ordering the payment order to pay the amount equivalent to 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the full payment order, and the above payment order was served to the defendant B on July 12, 2006 and confirmed on July 27, 206

Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay 67,880,000 won and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum from July 13, 2006 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment as requested by the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Defendant C’s portion

A. The part concerning the claim for return of unjust enrichment 1) Defendant C asserted that the Plaintiff claimed D apartment, 103 Dong 1302 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) Although Defendant B purchased the apartment in this case and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name, it is null and void as it purchased the apartment in this case, and in fact purchased the apartment in this case and entrusted the title to Defendant C with a trust in order to evade the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant C gains profits without any legal cause, excluding KRW 125 million, 100 million, which is the value of the apartment in this case, from the value of the apartment in this case, KRW 180 million, which is the value of the apartment in this case. Accordingly, Defendant C, as the creditor of Defendant B, is liable to pay KRW 55 million, and damages for delay, to the Plaintiff claiming for the return of unjust enrichment against Defendant C as the subrogation of the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant C in this case.2) There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment, or there is no evidence No. 2 and 3.