1. A claim filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”).

1. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff contracted to the Defendant for civil works, such as retaining walls, drainage and landscape tanks, etc. (hereinafter “the instant construction works”) for KRW 285,00,000.

However, as the Plaintiff failed to pay the construction cost properly, the Defendant suspended construction on March 2016, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the construction cost only for the completed portion at the time of termination of the instant construction contract.

According to the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff paid 190 million won (including value-added tax) as the construction price for the utility high.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. (1) Determination as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment is based on KRW 178,129,369 among the instant construction works, and KRW 1,50,00,00 for the Defendant’s other construction works, i.e., access road packing expenses, KRW 1,50,00 for the Defendant’s other construction works, i.e., access road packing expenses, KRW 7,00,000, KRW 2,299,500 for the site and KRW 11,880,110 for the value-added tax and its value-added tax totaling KRW 1,080,000 for the land and KRW 11,880,010 for the Plaintiff’s construction expenses already paid from KRW 19,300,000 to KRW 178,129,369, KRW 11,80,110 for the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall return the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(2) As to the facts recognized, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the part of the period of origin while terminating the contract for the instant construction work.

Therefore, considering that it is difficult to see that the construction cost received by the Defendant does not have any legal ground, and further, the amount claimed by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment is a small amount, and the appraisal document 178,129,369 won is included in value-added tax, this part of the allegation cannot be accepted.

B. The judgment on the claim for defect compensation (1) is more than the design (31%) of the legal surface of the retaining wall between A-LINE and B-LINE out of the attached drawings.