1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2013, C entered into a franchise agreement with D on the F cafeteria operated under the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E, and concluded a construction contract with the Defendant for the interior works of the F cafeteria at KRW 138,500,000 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. According to the instant construction contract, the Defendant completed a cafeteria construction and received the payment of the price.

C. On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff registered its business with the trade name “G”, and opened a F cafeteria on November 28, 2013, and corrected the trade name on February 19, 2014 as “F.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The actual representative of the Fcafeteria is not C, but the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff concluded the instant construction contract under the name of C due to unavoidable circumstances. 2) The Defendant took the unjust enrichment of KRW 15,000,000 from the conduit among the interior works under the instant construction contract, and KRW 10,200,000 from the signboard, and KRW 6,200,000 from the table, and incurred damages of KRW 5,00,000 from the installation cost of the sunlight, and KRW 10,00,000 from the table construction due to the error in interior works.

3. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment of KRW 50,200,000 to the plaintiff.

B. As long as the instant construction contract was concluded between the Defendant and C, even if the actual representative of the F cafeteria is not C, such circumstance alone does not make sure that the Plaintiff, who is not a party to the instant construction contract, directly against the Defendant, is not entitled to seek a refund of the construction cost or compensation for damages arising from defects in interior works.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.