1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. 사실관계 [인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 1∽7호증, 을 1, 5호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지 피고 회사는 2015. 2. 9. 히스종합건설㈜와 사이에 시흥시 정왕동 시화MTV단지 신축공사(이하, ‘이 사건 신축공사’)에 관하여 공사기간 2015. 3. 2.부터 2016. 6. 15.까지, 공사대금 17억 1,600만 원으로 정하여 도급계약을 체결하였다.

On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff received a subcontract for construction cost of KRW 47.3 million and completed the construction work on July 7, 2015, for the instant new construction works, 5 tons of the operating 5 tons of the instant new construction works (hereinafter “instant construction works”).

On the other hand, on June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff was awarded a subcontract for 2Set production works, which are five tons of the new construction works in this case, from the Defendant, and completed the construction work on July 7, 2015, and received all payment from the Defendant until July 22, 2015.

2. Claim and summary of judgment: The Plaintiff received the down payment of KRW 14.3 million among the construction price in this case and did not receive the remainder of KRW 33 million ( KRW 47.3 million - 14.3 million).

① For the purpose of securing the above 333 million won bonds to the KOS General Construction Bank Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff shall exercise in subrogation the amount of 33 million won among the bonds issued by the KOS General Construction Bank Co., Ltd. in this case.

② Since the Plaintiff’s supply of straws causes losses to the Plaintiff that the Defendant benefiting and did not receive the price, unjust enrichment is established.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 33 million won out of the price of the new construction project in this case to the defendant company of the Simman General Construction Co., Ltd., and even if not, 33 million won should be paid to the plaintiff.

주위적 청구에 관한 판단 : 갑 11호증, 을 2∽4, 6∽13호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 시설자금 대출 9억 3,248만 원 ㈜신한은행이 승인한 대출금액은...