1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's successor's claim are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant have arisen.

1. Case summary and the presumed factual basis

A. The summary of the case is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, the contractor, calculated the damages for delay, including the delayed construction period due to the cause not attributable to the Plaintiff; (b) obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 174,029,481; and (c) even if the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to return advance payment to the Defendant; or even if the obligation to return advance payment was recognized, the Defendant had the obligation to return advance payment only within the scope of advance payments violating the pre-paid condition; (d) obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 16,081,530 by deducting the damages for delay from the pre-paid construction price; (c) due to the discontinuance of the Defendant’s improper construction work, the Plaintiff claimed additional construction costs equivalent to KRW 170,047,077,077, and KRW 16,197,141, and KRW 709, KRW 197, KRW 197, KRW 197, KRW 197, KRW 197, KRW 2797, KRW 197,74147.

The first instance court dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim, and filed an appeal against the Plaintiff’s damages for delay (i) unjust enrichment equivalent to compensation for delay, or 166,589,499 won for delay, and (ii) unjust enrichment equivalent to damages for delay on advance payment, 7,716,534 won for delay, ③ additional construction cost of KRW 115,693,967), and damages for delay.

In the first instance, the intervenor's claim amounting to KRW 260 million out of the plaintiff's claim amount against the defendant.