1. Defendant C’s KRW 19,683,612 as well as 5% per annum from December 18, 2020 to February 4, 2021 as to the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

In full view of the facts without dispute and evidence submitted by the plaintiff and defendant C and the purport of the whole arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged:

On January 28, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C on the contract for D remodeling (hereinafter “instant construction”) at KRW 57.6 million ( March 22, 2019 on the scheduled completion date) and paid KRW 53 million on several occasions to Defendant B’s account designated by Defendant C.

However, on May 2019, Defendant C discontinued the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff sent notice of termination of the instant construction contract on May 30, 2019. The notice reached Defendant C around that time.

Claim against Defendant C

A. According to the result of the on-site verification conducted by the appraiser E as a result of the on-site verification of the return of unjust gains, the construction cost that Defendant C performed until the discontinuance of the instant construction project can be acknowledged as constituting 3,316,388 as shown in the attached Form, including wages and material costs.

Therefore, Defendant C shall return to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 19,683,612, which remains after deducting the construction cost of KRW 33,316,388 from the construction cost already received KRW 53 million.

B. The Plaintiff claiming delayed prize asserts to the effect that he/she should pay the delayed prize amounting to 36,52,467 won (19,683,612 x 3/100 x 619 x 619 days) during the period from March 30, 2019 to December 7, 2020, since the construction of the instant case was not completed until March 29, 2019, the Plaintiff failed to complete the construction of the instant case. However, the Plaintiff and Defendant C did not have an agreement on the delayed prize amounting to 36,52,467 won (19,683,612 x 100 x 619 days).

The plaintiff in the claim against the defendant B asserts that since the defendant B was denied by the defendant C and received the construction cost with the defendant B's account, the defendant B should return the unfair benefits jointly and severally with the defendant C.

However, as recognized, the person who entered into the instant construction contract is not Defendant B, but Defendant C, and thus, Defendant C is obligated to return unjust enrichment (transfer to Defendant B’s account).