1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal lawsuit expanded at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that the “1. Basic Facts” part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. In light of the fact that there is no dispute over the portion of the construction cost paid in lieu of the Defendant, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 10, and the result of the Plaintiff’s examination by the court of first instance, and the purport of the argument by the court of first instance, the Defendant actually paid the construction cost of the instant building to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on February 22, 2012, with the construction cost of KRW 93.5 million, and with the construction period from February 22, 2012 to April 30, 2012. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff actually paid the construction cost of KRW 10,000,000 ( KRW 8 million on May 22, 201, KRW 50,000 on June 13, 2012).

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 37.5 million paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant.

B. Around March 2012, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 46 million to F on behalf of the Defendant to the Plaintiff who was the lessee of the instant building on behalf of the Defendant, as there is no dispute between the parties (the Defendant: (a) was led to the confession of the said fact on the date of the 12th pleading of the first instance trial; (b) the confession was revoked on the date of the 12th instance trial; (c) the confession was not sufficient to recognize it by only the descriptions in the 12-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 12, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it; and (d) the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to return the said confession to the Plaintiff.

C. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant on May 18, 2012 as hospital expenses by May 18, 2012 is a dispute between the parties.