1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C to enter into a contract with the effect that the instant construction work on the ground (hereinafter “instant construction work”) was set at a contract price of KRW 193,00,000 (value-added tax separate) as the contract amount of KRW 193,00,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On September 12, 2016, Defendant C prepared a construction waiver note to the Plaintiff that “Defendant C waives the instant construction work and accordingly does not assert all the rights to the construction and the right of retention.”

C. On June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff, the mother of Defendant C, remitted the total of KRW 140,000,000,000 to the Defendant’s deposit account on June 27, 2016, KRW 35,00,000 on June 28, 2016, KRW 40,000 on July 27, 2016, and KRW 30,000 on August 25, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 140,00,000,000 as the contract price for the instant construction to the Defendants. On September 12, 2016, the Defendants drafted a written rejection of the construction abandonment to the Plaintiff on September 12, 2016. As such, the Defendants’ construction payment based on the Seongdong-si was merely KRW 89,20,000 at the time of the discontinuance of the said construction. As such, the Defendants jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,80,000 upon the return of unjust enrichment (i.e., KRW 140,000 - KRW 89,200,000) and damages for delay.

B. We examine the determination as to Defendant B’s assertion, and the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 140,000,000 to Defendant B’s deposit account, which is the mother of Defendant C, as seen earlier. According to the evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the “other matters” column of the contract of this case includes the “Account: Nonghyup”; however, the “contractor” column of the contract of this case includes only the “C” and the Defendant B’s signature or seal.