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. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods to the Defendant in the sum of USD 1.95, USD 4,290 for the volume of 2,200.

On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5,000,000 (the amount computed on the basis of KRW 4,800 per unit with respect to 1,400 out of 2,200 as above) to the Defendant under the pretext of advance payment under the above commodity supply contract.

Then, the defendant requested the plaintiff to pay additional amounts by explaining that the pipe for the chair's sale should be given and purchased in the Vietnam local cash, and that the plaintiff should be given the benefit to the person who produces the chair's sale.

Accordingly, on January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 8,680,00 from the account under C’s name to the Defendant.

However, the defendant did not return the total amount of KRW 13,680,000 (=5,000,000) paid for the goods supplied or paid by the plaintiff up to now.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff 13,680,000 won, which is the amount equivalent to the price of the goods already paid, and damages for delay thereof, as unjust enrichment.

B. Selectively, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract directly with the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff asserted a partnership relationship with C in the preparatory document dated February 9, 2018, and claimed unjust enrichment as a manager of the partnership’s association.

However, in the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal and the briefs dated July 6, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had concluded a goods supply contract with the Defendant again, and thus, the Plaintiff’s selective claim is deemed to have been filed.

The Plaintiff is a person who engages in sales business, such as furniture and chair, with the trade name of “D” and “E,” and the Plaintiff was to operate a joint business for the efficiency of the mutual business with C.

The relationship between the plaintiff and C is a partnership under the Civil Act (hereinafter referred to as "the partnership of this case").