2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On February 11, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) purchased “C” (hereinafter “instant machinery”) from the Defendant, which is a equipment used during construction, from KRW 33,550,000; and (b) paid the said machinery cost; (c) the instant machinery does not work normally; and (d) the Plaintiff returned the said machinery; (c) the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 33,500,000 as unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion is merely issuing a tax invoice upon D's request, and there was no transaction with the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased the machinery of this case from D and E, so it cannot claim the return of the purchase price with unjust enrichment to the defendant.

2. It is recognized that the Defendant issued a tax invoice for the instant machine to the Plaintiff and received KRW 28,000,000 from the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties to the sales market and the Plaintiff, or according to the evidence No. 1.

However, if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the testimony of the witness witness witness D added the whole purport of the pleading, D sells the machinery of this case to the plaintiff upon the request of the parties, although the plaintiff requested to issue a tax invoice, the defendant issued the tax invoice to the plaintiff, and the defendant delivered 28,000,000 won for the machinery of this case received from the plaintiff to D, respectively, according to the above facts of recognition, it cannot be deemed that the sales contract for the machinery of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is a party to the instant sales contract is without merit without any need to further examine.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.