1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,50,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 5% from May 21, 2015 to May 26, 2016, and the following.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as to the cause of the claim and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff subcontracted to the defendant and the defendant during April 2014 for the remaining part of the Civil Works for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work for the Construction Work. From that time, the plaintiff, among those, transferred KRW 2,500,000 to the defendant on June 18, 2014 while paying KRW 2,50,000,000 to the defendant on June 18, 2014. The plaintiff, after ascertaining the transfer of KRW 25,000,000 to the defendant's account, the plaintiff can prove that he sent KRW 22,50,000,000 to the defendant on May 8.

According to the above facts, the defendant shall transfer the amount of KRW 25,00,000 to the defendant's account instead of KRW 25,500,000,000 to the defendant's account, and 22,50,000,000 (=25,000,000-2,50,000), excluding the labor cost of KRW 2,50,000, which should have been paid from the above erroneous amount without any legal cause, shall be deemed to have suffered damages equivalent to the above amount.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay 22,500,000 won for unjust enrichment and delay damages from May 21, 2015, after the date of return designated by the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from June 14, 2014.

However, the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is without a fixed deadline, and there is damages for delay after the defendant received the claim for performance, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff made the claim for restitution before the plaintiff sent the certificate of the above content to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for

2. The defendant's assertion is a salary or on-site for the above construction work from the plaintiff while serving as the head of the site office to which the plaintiff belongs.