1. A notary public against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A, No. 1640, 2010.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2, 2009, Plaintiff A entered into a contract for construction works with the Defendant for the construction work of pipes part among the construction work of Suwon-gu E apartment (hereinafter “instant construction work”) with the construction work cost of KRW 1,217,00,000, and the construction period from November 2, 2009 to September 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant contract for construction work”), and the Plaintiff B, the spouse of the Plaintiff, as joint and several, signed the contract for construction works (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On November 2, 2009, in order to guarantee the performance of the obligation stipulated in the above construction contract, Plaintiff A created a joint collateral security against the Defendant, as the receipt of the maximum debt amount of No. 33580 on November 2, 2009, regarding the real estate listed in the attached list owned by Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the F apartment G in Seo-gu Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, as the receipt of No. 33580 on November 2, 2009.

C. While the Plaintiff was performing the instant construction project in accordance with the instant construction contract, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff: (a) on September 13, 2010, at the Defendant’s request, the Defendant, the Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff A, the amount of KRW 100,000,000; and (b) on August 31, 2011, the due date for reimbursement of KRW 20% per annum; and (c) on August 1, 2011, a notary public made and issued a notarized deed under the monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed under the instant monetary loan agreement”) by No. 1640 on the D Law Firm

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The defendant filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment for the additional payment of the construction cost, stating that the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the defendant the above 51,35,030 won and delay damages for the return of unjust enrichment, since the defendant paid the plaintiff A a total of KRW 1,268,35,030 as the construction cost, even though the construction cost to be paid to the plaintiff A was KRW 1,217,00,000,000,000.

Domins, B.