1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 77,921,700 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 1, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the part of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu and Seoan-gu, Seo-gu, and one parcel of land C (hereinafter “instant construction”) stipulating the construction cost of KRW 325,960,000 as to the construction cost of the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff agreed to pay wages, equipment costs, and material costs out of the construction cost.

B. From December 29, 2015 to July 31, 2016, the ordering office of the Plaintiff or the instant construction directly paid the Defendant’s creditors KRW 414,956,870 in total in terms of wage, equipment cost, material cost, food cost, transportation cost, and transportation cost (no evidence exists to prove that the Plaintiff paid labor cost of KRW 3,105,00 in July 2017 asserted by the Plaintiff).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant claimed false labor costs, material costs, and construction costs, or failed to repay the Defendant’s obligations related to the instant construction works to the creditors, and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant’s creditors money in excess of the construction cost under the instant contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the money that the Plaintiff paid to the creditors in excess of the construction cost stipulated in the instant contract to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant only managed the instant construction site, and the Plaintiff paid all the expenses incurred in the instant construction project. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff paid the construction cost in excess of the original expectation regarding the instant construction project, it cannot be claimed against the Defendant. (2) The Defendant claimed to the Plaintiff only KRW 357,087,70 as the instant construction cost, and the Plaintiff paid only KRW 345,842,70 among them. As such, the overpaid construction cost is limited to KRW 19,882,700 as the Plaintiff paid KRW 345,842,70.