1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the new argument of the plaintiff at the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Even if the Plaintiff did not directly conclude a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on domestic affairs, the Defendants asserted that, at the time of the Plaintiff’s completion of construction work, the Plaintiff has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 21,00,000,000 of the construction cost executed by the Plaintiff without any legal cause, on the ground that the Plaintiff had a building with the Nam-gu F, G, H, and I ground of land at the port where the Plaintiff owned the said construction work.

If the contractual performance has become a benefit of not only the other party to the contract but also a third party, if the other party to the contract is entitled to claim a return of unjust enrichment against the third party in addition to claiming the counter-performance of the contractual performance, it would be sufficient for the other party to claim a return of unjust enrichment against the third party, which would result in a violation of the basic principles of contract law by transferring the risk burden under the contract under his/her own responsibility to the third party, and would result in a violation of the basic principles of contract law. In addition, the party to the contract who is the creditor would be given preferential treatment in comparison with the general creditors of the other party to the contract, which would prejudice the interests of the general creditor, and the third party who is the beneficiary infringed the other party to the contract, and thus, in such case, the party

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da6564, 66571 delivered on August 23, 2002). In light of the above, the plaintiff and the defendants did not enter into a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff is J or K, taking into account the statement of the evidence No. 3 and the testimony of the witness J of the first instance trial.