1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant would obtain a construction permit on the Dong-gu, Busan, D, E, and dry field 580 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, and paid the Defendant a total of KRW 13 million for expenses, but the actual construction permit was not granted.

As above, the amount of KRW 13 million between the Defendant’s acquisition of a building permit from the Plaintiff is either the money that the Defendant acquired by deceiving the Plaintiff, or the money that the Defendant received with or without any legal ground upon obtaining a building permit.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 13 million and damages for delay due to unjust enrichment on the ground that the money obtained by deception or the terms and conditions are not fulfilled.

B. According to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff’s statement to the Defendant as to February 10, 201 and the same year

2. 21.5 million won, and the same year.

3. 22.3 million won, and the same year.

7. 22.2.2 million won has been remitted to 13.0 million won.

However, each of the above facts and Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 8 was obtained by deceiving the plaintiff by borrowing the building permit for the land of this case.

It is insufficient to recognize that the above money transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant was granted or delivered without any legal cause under the condition of a building permit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant, upon introduction by the FF around October 2010, delegated the Plaintiff, who was planning to build a new house on the instant land at the time of the introduction by the Defendant, to perform the administrative affairs, etc. prior to the construction permit for a new house for a electric source, and ② there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant promised to the Plaintiff at the time of the delegation agreement with the construction permit for the instant land at the time of obtaining the said delegation agreement.