1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an educational foundation that operates the Ansan-do vocational training school under the jurisdiction of the Office of Education of Gyeonggi-do, and the Defendant concluded a construction contract with the Daegu Local Government Procurement Service that represented the above school for the construction of the vocational training room (construction and civil engineering).

(hereinafter “instant construction work”). The total construction cost of the instant construction work was KRW 905,176,700, the commencement date was scheduled as February 28, 2014, and the completion date was scheduled as June 2, 2014.

On March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 181,000,000 out of the above money as advance payment to the Defendant while receiving a total of KRW 2 billion subsidy from the Republic of Korea and Gyeongbuk-do for the instant construction.

(hereinafter “instant advance payment”). However, on February 16, 2014, before the commencement date of the construction project, civil petitions were filed at the construction site of this case, and the commencement of the construction project continued to be delayed for the resolution thereof.

In the end, on February 2015, the office of education of the Gyeongbuk-do decided to finally change the construction site, and the contract that the Defendant implements the instant construction was rescinded without commencement.

Therefore, the defendant should return 181,00,000 won received from the plaintiff as unjust gains. The plaintiff requested the defendant to return the advance payment of this case on several occasions, including February 23, 2015, March 9, 2015, and March 24, 2015, but the defendant did not return it until now. Thus, the defendant sought the return of the said advance payment against the defendant.

2. Determination

A. First, the fact that the Defendant received advance payment of KRW 181,00,000 on March 14, 2014 is also recognized by the Defendant.

B. However, comprehensively taking account of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 23, the parties to the instant construction contract, which concluded the instant construction contract, are not the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but the Daegu Local Government Procurement Service (Korea) and the Defendant, and the Ansan-jin School operated by the Plaintiff, as the end-user institution of the instant construction project under the Government Procurement Act.