1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 5,568,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for KRW 5,568,00 and its amount from March 19, 2016 to September 30, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff received a contract by designating “new construction works for a factory and office building” on two parcels outside Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, as the construction cost of KRW 1,350,000,000 (Additional Tax) and the scheduled completion date of construction works on December 31, 2014.

It is separate whether a single contractor is a sole contractor.

(hereinafter “instant construction project”). (b)

The Plaintiff received the payment of KRW 1,50,000,000 for the first portion of the construction payment on November 7, 2014, and KRW 275,00,000 for the second portion of the construction payment on December 31, 2014, and KRW 374,50,000 for the third portion of the construction payment on January 30, 2015, and KRW 157,50,000 for the fourth portion of the construction payment on March 11, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C to seek payment of the unpaid construction cost (including additional construction cost) KRW 308,328,000, and C directly performed interior works, etc. as the Plaintiff did not complete the instant construction work at the time, and asserted the deduction of the cost, delayed payment, and defect repair cost.

Daegu District Court 2015Gahap2366). D.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 30,342,00,000, totaling KRW 1,089,000 on November 19, 2014, KRW 21,000 on the 21st of the same month, and KRW 5,00,000 on January 7, 2015, and KRW 14,485,00 on February 14, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 8

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff, upon receiving the instant construction contract from the Defendant’s introduction, agreed to pay part of the proceeds of the construction on the condition that the Plaintiff and the owner are responsible for coordinating the construction work and claiming and receiving the construction cost. The Defendant received KRW 30,342,000 from the Plaintiff and the owner of the instant construction, but did not perform the said work, and sought a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 30,342,000.

The defendant, after the plaintiff and the defendant decided to execute the construction work of this case as a partnership business, the defendant left the partnership business at the request of the plaintiff, and then 3% of the construction cost.