1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

On October 201, the Plaintiff contracted the construction of a new building of six-story neighborhood living facilities on the scale of the six-story to the Grand Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Large Construction”).

On April 10, 2013, the construction was suspended, and the plaintiff contracted the remainder part of the construction to the defendant with the amount of KRW 1.263.5 billion, but the completion of the construction completed by the large construction was calculated as KRW 200 million.

Since then, the defendant did not receive the construction cost from the plaintiff, the Daegu District Court 2013Gahap9578 filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for claim for the payment of the construction cost.

On April 7, 2016, the appellate court of the instant case rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages of KRW 300 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “prior judgment”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Since then, the defendant received 300 million won by the above judgment in the procedure of voluntary auction conducted with respect to the plaintiff's property.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

Plaintiff’s assertion

Although the Defendant’s temporary materials used at the Defendant’s construction site are purchased by the Plaintiff, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 300 million, including the above construction materials price, in the auction procedure for the Plaintiff’s property.

Therefore, the defendant should return the above KRW 50 million to the plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

Judgment

Since the previous judgment violated the obligation of the Plaintiff to pay the construction cost under the construction contract with the Defendant, it is merely that the Defendant should pay KRW 300 million as damages, and the Plaintiff bears the burden of KRW 50 million as the construction cost.

It does not include the fact that KRW 50,000 should be reduced among the obligation to pay the construction price to the defendant on the premise of such reduction.

In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant unjust enrichment of 50 million won between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.