1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount equivalent to the subsequent order ordering payment.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning of this court’s judgment as to the claim of a principal lawsuit is as stated in the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or deletion as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff do not differ from the allegations in the first instance trial, and the evidence submitted in the first instance trial, and even if the testimony of the witness H is added to the testimony of the court of first instance, the first instance judgment is recognized as legitimate). The last 3rd term “time delivery” is deemed “time delivery,” and “credit card height” is deemed “credit card,” respectively.

5. The Defendant’s deletion of “the instant construction work” following the 7th line.

5. The testimony of witness E shall be referred to as “part of witness E” of the first instance trial witness E.

The 6th line’s “the Plaintiff against the Defendant” is “the Defendant,” and the 6th line “the construction” of the 7th line is “the Plaintiff only.”

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The summary of the defendant's assertion is stated in this part of this Court's judgment of the court of first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff recognized the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from May 23, 2017 to December 6, 2019, which is clear that it is the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case, with respect to the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 3 million and the day following the judgment of this court, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

The defendant is seeking damages for delay pursuant to the interest rate prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of a duplicate of the counterclaim.