1. The claim for return of unjust enrichment is dismissed among the plaintiff's main claim that is changed in exchange at the trial.

2...

Facts of recognition

On April 18, 2012, the Defendant concluded a contract with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) for the new construction cost of KRW 1,953,270,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter referred to as “the construction cost of this case”) for the construction cost of the new construction of Chungcheong-gun C Ground D (hereinafter referred to as “instant building” as stated in the attached Table”) on April 18, 2012, from April 25, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

B on November 1, 2012, among the new construction works, subcontracted to the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 77,000,000 (including value-added tax; hereinafter “the subcontract price in this case”) and the construction period from November 1, 2012 to November 30, 2012.

The Plaintiff completed the construction under the said subcontract, and the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the instant building on December 27, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 7, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 11, and 17 (including the provisional number), and the plaintiff's assertion as to the plaintiff's primary claim for the purport of the whole pleadings, and the defendant and Eul agreed on Nov. 1, 2012, "the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the subcontract price of this case directly to the plaintiff." Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the subcontract price of this case 77,00,000,000 and the delay damages.

In addition, the above agreement constitutes “ direct payment agreement between the ordering person (Defendant), the original contractor (B) and the subcontractor (Plaintiff)” under Article 14(1)2 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract”), and thus, the Defendant, who is the ordering person, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 77,00,000,000 and delay damages pursuant to Article 14(1)2 of the Subcontract Act.

Even if the above direct payment agreement is not acknowledged, B, the principal contractor, was unable to repay the subcontract price of this case, which is the principal contractor, and this is the principal contractor under Article 14 (1) 1 of the Subcontract Act.