1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant and C for the delivery of the instant building and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff as a counterclaim for the payment of the construction cost and the loan. The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of real estate against C among the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal lawsuit, and partly accepted the Defendant’s claim for delivery of real estate against the Defendant, and dismissed the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant and C, while accepting the Defendant’s claim for repayment of unjust enrichment, among the Defendant’s counterclaim, and partly accepted the claim

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the whole part of the main lawsuit and counterclaim against the plaintiff, and the defendant filed an appeal against the defendant as to the counterclaim only against the claim of KRW 4 million and the design service cost of KRW 1,182,920, among the part against the defendant as to the counterclaim.

However, as the Plaintiff had been absent on three occasions at the date of trial of the party, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant and C was deemed to have been withdrawn pursuant to Article 268(2) through (4) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim of KRW 4 million and design service cost of KRW 1,182,920 among the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant.

2. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and in light of the evidence of this case, the recognition and judgment of the court of first instance are justified

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court concerning this case is that it is identical to that of Paragraph 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following contents, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Supplementary Provisions] The following shall be added to the 8th judgment of the court of first instance: “A certificate of 10,000,000 won is received” under the 12th judgment.

"If the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall deny the contents of the statement.