beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's respective conjunctive claims added at the trial are all dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. The reason why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the "the defendant" from the court of first instance No. 2, No. 6, No. 8, and No. 17 is "from the defendant or the defendant's representative F", and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
A. The Plaintiff’s subrogation portion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion was paid by C for KRW 234,190,000 for the instant construction work, and C has a claim equivalent to the above amount. Since C was awarded a contract from the Defendant for a new construction of the instant house, C has a claim for the said amount as to the instant construction work, which is the content of the new house construction work, against the Defendant. In subrogation of the Defendant, in order to preserve the Plaintiff’s above claim against C, the Plaintiff exercised the above claim against C against the Defendant. 2), and even if the Plaintiff had a claim for payment amounting to KRW 234,190,000 for the instant construction work against C, even if there was a claim for payment amounting to KRW 234,190,000 for the instant construction work, there is no evidence to acknowledge that C had a claim for payment for the instant construction work, which is the content of the new house construction work, with respect to the Defendant.
B. The portion of return of unjust enrichment 1) If the Plaintiff’s assertion did not contract the instant construction to the Plaintiff via F, which is his agent, the Plaintiff completed the instant construction among the new construction works of the instant house, and the Defendant owned the instant house. Therefore, without any legal cause, the Defendant obtained profit equivalent to KRW 234,190,000 from the construction cost of the instant house and thereby incurred damages equivalent to the said amount to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant must return the said amount to the Plaintiff. 2) The judgment was based on the judgment of the lower court, 1, 4, and 5.