1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the part of the defendant in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on a new argument at the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the construction cost incurred by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, since the defendant is gaining substantial benefits without any legal ground through the instant structural reinforcement work.

B. (1) In a case where the performance under the contract becomes the benefit of a third party as well as the other party to the contract, if the other party to the contract who provided the performance may claim for the return of unjust enrichment directly against the third party in addition to claiming for the counter-performance under the contract, it would result in a violation of the basic principles of contract law by imposing the risk burden under the contract under his/her own responsibility on the third party. In addition, it would result in a violation of the basic principles of contract law, as a result of the party to the contract being given preferential treatment compared to the general creditors of the other party to the contract, which is the debtor, thereby impairing the interests of the general creditor. The third party, who is the beneficiary, infringed the right of defense, etc. held against the other party to the contract, thus, in

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a building under Article 10-2 (1) 6 of the Act, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a building under Article 10-2 (1) 6 of the Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a building under Article 10-2 (1) 6 of the Act, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to the establishment of a building under Article 10-2 (1) 6 of the Act, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the legal principles as to the establishment of a building under Article 10-2 (1) 6 of the Act.