Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment on elevator works is dismissed.

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In order to construct a multi-family house on the land of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant for the remainder of construction works other than the structural frame construction work (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). From February 22, 2016 to August 31, 2016, with respect to construction work period of KRW 800,000,000 and the construction period (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. From December 29, 2015 to November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 398,000,000 as the construction price.

C. On January 24, 2017, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff the details of the written calculation on the base date (hereinafter “instant calculation details”). The sum of the written calculation indicated therein is KRW 320,510,816, and the specific details are as shown in the attached Table.

The defendant did not proceed with construction work after January 24, 2017.

E. On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant construction contract was terminated on the ground that the Defendant discontinued construction works and did not notify the Plaintiff of the reasons for delay.

F. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for embezzlement, etc. by the Seoul Central District Court 2018Kadan25272

(2) In the first instance court of the previous lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant construction contract was terminated after the Defendant received KRW 398,00,000 from the Plaintiff as the advance payment for the construction cost, and that the instant construction contract was merely KRW 320,510,816, and the Defendant would merely return KRW 77,489,184, the difference to unjust enrichment. The Defendant would return KRW 11,880,000 to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “D”), a subcontractor of the elevator (E/L), and the Defendant would also pay KRW 11,880,00,000 to the Defendant, a subcontractor of the elevator (E/L). However, the instant written calculation, the Defendant argued that the Defendant is liable for damages as it acquired the difference by making a false entry that the amount of the elevator construction work was the basis for the instant calculation.

The court of first instance shall accept the above (1) A claim and (2) A claim shall be dismissed.