A. On November 201, 2013, the Plaintiff, who was engaged in the business of collecting and selling secondhand materials, met the Defendant at the front of the headquarters located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, via E, F, and G.

The defendant is a person who engages in the business of collecting and selling scrap metal under the trade name of "H (representative I)."

B. According to G’s explanation, the Plaintiff decided to purchase scrap metal emitted from the interior removal site of the pertinent D headquarters (hereinafter “instant site”) and transferred total of KRW 50 million from December 11, 2013 to December 18, 2013 to the account in the name of “I” known to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) C.

However, according to the reduction and disposal of the scrap metal at the instant site by any person, the Plaintiff did not receive at all the scrap metal under the instant contract.

【Ground for Recognition: Each entry of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant believed that the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant and concluded the instant contract on the part of the Plaintiff, stating that “in the instant case, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase both the scrap metal and the scrap metal coming from the instant site.” The Defendant did not perform all the obligations under the instant contract.

Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks the defendant to fulfill the liability for tort liability, which was primarily caused by the defendant's deceptive act, and the first preliminary is to cancel the contract of this case due to the defendant's default, and seek to fulfill the responsibility for restitution of unjust enrichment accordingly, and seek the second preliminary obligation for restitution of unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant did not conclude the instant contract with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff only concluded a contract with the J (J) (hereinafter “J”) having the right to the instant site.

At the time, it was true that the defendant received KRW 50 million from the plaintiff, but it should be paid to the J.