1. The first instance judgment, including the Plaintiff’s claim selected by the court, is as follows.

Basic Facts

A. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant to install solar power plants in the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff at KRW 180 million (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) on the Plaintiff’s land, and paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

B. Article 9 of the instant construction contract provides, “The contract deposit and the commencement of authorization and permission shall be used for the power generation business expenses, etc., and if it is found impossible to grant permission, the contractor shall, without delay, return it to the ordering person, not claim the re-expenses, and the ordering person shall not demand the return of it to the contractor when the contract is terminated without justifiable grounds.”

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's selective claims as to the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings are selective claims as follows.

Since the instant construction contract was concluded in the state that the Plaintiff did not explain the circumstances requiring the landowner D’s consent to the use of land, and thus the Plaintiff cancelled the instant construction contract on the ground of fraud or mistake on July 4, 2017, the Defendant is obliged to return the down payment amount of KRW 20,000,000 received under the instant construction contract, which was revoked, as unjust enrichment.

Even if the construction contract in this case is not revoked as above, it is reasonable to deem that the construction contract in this case was terminated as the defendant's default, and the defendant must return the down payment to the plaintiff by restitution.

Even if there is no ground to cancel or cancel the pertinent contract, even if the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment after reducing the estimated amount of damages.