A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) concluded a lease agreement on the lease of KRW 200,000, a deposit of KRW 200,000, which is the land for the Sejong Deputy Director, among G representing the Defendant B and the two owners of the Defendant B; and (b) paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant B.

After acquiring the above right of lease from F, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,000,000 to the account under the name of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) practically operated by Defendant E (hereinafter “Defendant C”) upon receiving a demand for the increase of deposit from Defendant E who represented Defendant B.

After that, the land of this case was sold to a third party in a voluntary auction procedure.

As a result, the instant lease agreement was impossible, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff deposit amounting to KRW 30,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. As to whether Defendant E demanded the Plaintiff to increase the deposit under the instant lease agreement on behalf of Defendant B, and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the deposit, the testimony of Defendant E is insufficient to recognize it solely on the basis of health class, evidence No. 2, and evidence No. 5-12, and witness F’s testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is without merit.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, as Defendant C and E received KRW 30,000,00 from the Plaintiff without any legal cause, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the claim as unjust enrichment.

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 6-1 to 4, the plaintiff can only recognize the fact that the plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,000 to defendant C's account on October 12, 2013, and the plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 to defendant C, and the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000 to defendant E.