1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 21, 201, 201, Sambu Construction Co., Ltd. subcontracted the contract amount of KRW 446,820,00, construction period to the Plaintiff and F, who had been engaged in the business with the trade name of “E” among the “Yungung-Yung-Yung River Construction Works,” which was ordered by the Seoul Regional Land Management Office on November 21, 201, to set up the contract amount of KRW 21,444 square meters and KRW 43,631 square meters in size (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. On November to December, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded to re-subcontract the instant construction project to the Defendant with the unit price of 7,300 won/land size (excluding value-added tax). The Plaintiff agreed to provide the Defendant with another day required for the said construction without compensation and to pay the construction cost in accordance with the work price.

C. The Plaintiff’s payment of the instant construction work to the Defendant, KRW 20,930,00 on January 30, 2012, and the same year

4. 2. 8,00,000 won, and for the same year.

7. 2. On December 31, 198, the Defendant paid KRW 151,893,000 in total, at least KRW 74,530,000, and at least KRW 48,433,00 in total, and by April 2013, the Defendant supplied food equivalent to KRW 10,559,735 in total.

Meanwhile, as the Defendant discontinued the instant construction around May 2012, G was re-subcontracted with approximately KRW 10,000 square meters among the instant construction works from the Plaintiff and F on June 15, 2012, as the unit cost of construction (6,300 square meters where the Plaintiff provided cement). Around that time, the Defendant had performed construction works worth KRW 4,587,000 for the price.

E. Ultimately, the Defendant renounced the instant construction before completion.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 4, 5, Gap 8, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 151,916,865 for the construction cost without confirming the existence of the motion according to the Defendant’s pressure. The Plaintiff paid KRW 151,916,865 for the return of unjust enrichment for the construction cost paid in excess of the motion.

When the Plaintiff bears cement costs required for the instant construction, he/she considers the deficit of KRW 200 per 1 square meter in the construction volume.