1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

The Plaintiff asserted that the primary claim was made by the Defendant and completed the construction work from June 13, 201 to July 28, 2011, by being awarded a contract for construction work cost of KRW 50 million with the Defendant for the construction work of the instant construction work.

Even if the defendant did not directly conclude a contract for construction with the plaintiff, the above corporation was conducted according to the request and direction of D, the husband of the defendant, and the right of representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established by using the right of representation as the basic right of representation.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 45,019,683 and delay damages therefor.

Judgment

No evidence exists to acknowledge that the Defendant contracted the instant construction work to the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that D signed the construction contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant.

The plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

Although it is not acknowledged that the plaintiff's oral contract with the defendant for the determination of the conjunctive claim was not acknowledged, the defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the building newly constructed by the construction of this case and operated a restaurant business while living in the above building, and therefore, 45,019,683 won paid by the plaintiff for construction cost constitutes unjust enrichment acquired

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 45,019,683 won and damages for delay.

Judgment

If the contractual performance becomes the benefit of a third party as well as the other party to the contract, if the other party to the contract who has provided the benefit can claim the return of unjust enrichment directly against the third party in addition to claiming the counter-performance of the contract, it would be against the basic principles of contract law by transferring the risk burden to the third party under his/her own responsibility.