1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 10,202,361 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from November 7, 2014 to November 16, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff contracted to the Defendant for the construction work of reinforced concrete from May 12, 2014 to June 30, 2014; the construction cost of KRW 78,000,000; value-added tax of KRW 7,800,000; the Defendant’s construction scope of the construction work; “The Defendant’s construction scope of reinforced concrete construction (fix, building materials, lodging expenses, and other tools); the Plaintiff’s support scope of reinforced concrete construction (fix, building materials, lodging expenses, and other tools); the Plaintiff’s construction scope of the construction work; the Plaintiff’s construction work was subcontracted to the Defendant as “recon

(hereinafter “instant subcontract”). (b)

The Defendant suspended construction works on June 24, 2014 while performing construction works under the instant subcontract, additional construction works for the Mandole, and sand field construction works, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff paid on behalf of the defendant various expenses, such as personnel expenses, food expenses, and material expenses, incurred by the defendant in the course of performing construction works under the subcontract of this case. As a result, the defendant's unjust enrichment for the excessive portion is claimed, and the return is sought as the principal lawsuit.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff was unilaterally paid personnel expenses, etc. against the defendant's will and could not set up against the defendant. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff could not set up against the defendant with the payment of the construction cost and the additional construction cost incurred during the construction of the subcontract in this case.

3. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 56,016,471 won and the entire pleadings, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay the amount to the Plaintiff, who did not pay personnel expenses, etc. to the employees, and the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant to pay the sum of KRW 56,016,471 as follows.

-.