1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Malaysia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ already established a contract on the manufacturing and distribution system of Plaintiff 2 factories.”).

B. On the other hand, on July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 110,000,000 among the remainder of the construction payment to AA company designated by Ethiopia.

C. Notwithstanding the above agreement, the above balance of KRW 110,000,000 was deposited in the Defendant’s account under the name of Ghana (hereinafter “instant account”) due to the mistake of the Plaintiff’s employee.

Accordingly, after receiving the decision on provisional seizure of claims against the instant account as of July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request for payment order against Gibyia, the Busan District Court Decision 2014Guj727, which requested 110,000,000 won with the Ulsan District Court Decision 201,000,000 won, and the said court issued the payment order on July 29, 2014, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on August 15, 2014.

E. In addition, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order to transfer the provisional seizure of the above claim to the provisional seizure of Ulsan District Court 2014TTTT10519, and the above court issued the above order on August 28, 2014 and served the Defendant around that time.

F. The Defendant deposited the remainder of KRW 67,998,545 after deducting the claim of KRW 42,001,455 for one’s own weather.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 5-1, 3, Evidence No. 7, Evidence No. 9, Evidence No. 10, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. It is unreasonable that the money deposited in the account in the Plaintiff’s name, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, was owned by the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant deducted the claim against the Plaintiff’s flag.

Therefore, the defendant should return the above deducted amount to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination Doesck;