1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C as the head of the headquarters of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and was in charge of Nonparty Company’s construction site (e.g., harmony E). On July 1, 2014, the Defendant supplied piping materials, etc. at the above construction site in accordance with C’s order, and C requested the representative of Nonparty Company F to transfer KRW 2,00,000 to Defendant bank account.

B. Accordingly, on July 1, 2014, from the Plaintiff’s bank account, the F’s spouse, to the Defendant’s bank account, KRW 2,000,000 was transferred.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 11 evidence, Eul 1 through 3, and 5 evidence (including evidence with serial numbers), Eul's witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the above money was remitted to the defendant for personnel expenses at the above construction site, and there was no amount that the defendant actually worked at the above construction site, or there was no fact that the defendant supplied the pipe materials, etc. at the above construction site. Thus, the above money should be returned because it was erroneously remitted.

In the above facts, it is sufficiently recognized by the above evidence that the defendant, like the above facts of recognition, supplied piping materials, etc. to the non-party company's construction site at the above construction site and transferred them to the non-party company's price of KRW 2,00,000 as the price for the goods (the text message sent by C to F is indicated as "B: 2,00,000,000 won, and there is no sufficient evidence to deem otherwise that it was remitted as personnel expenses). The plaintiff's doubt as to whether the piping materials, etc. supplied by the defendant were used at the above construction site is an internal issue, regardless of the defendant's delivery, and it is nothing more than the internal issue that the legitimacy should be determined between the plaintiff and C, and otherwise, evidence exists to deem that the above remittance was made without legal grounds.