대여금
The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.
All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 22, 2016, theO entered into an agreement with Q, etc., the owner of the instant land and 12 parcels (hereinafter “instant land”). Around December 22, 2016, Q, etc. on the construction permit for the instant land.
B. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a standard contract for private construction works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with respect to new construction works on the instant land in Q’s name, setting the construction cost of KRW 11,227,00,000 (Additional Tax).
C. On June 9, 2017, the Plaintiff and S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”) entered into a credit transaction agreement on KRW 2,250,000,000 with the I Stock Company (hereinafter “I”).
On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for transfer and acquisition of a business entity with the O on all rights to the implementation of the new construction project.
E. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 800 million to the Defendant’s account.
F. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant remitted KRW 160 million to the account of E Co., Ltd., and KRW 300 million to the account of F Co., Ltd., respectively, and the Defendant remitted KRW 460 million to the Plaintiff via C’s account on June 26, 2017.
G. On September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the instant land by setting the sales price of KRW 6.3 billion with Q, etc.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 11 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. On June 7, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into the instant construction contract with the Defendant, and paid KRW 800 million to the Defendant as the construction price on the 16th of the same month.
Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to rescind the instant construction contract. On June 26, 2017, the Defendant returned KRW 460 million out of the construction cost as above, 80 million, and the remainder KRW 340 million by the end of June 2017.
Therefore, the defendant's unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 340 million = KRW 800 million -.