1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, around September 201, the Plaintiff was working as an executive officer of C, a corporation, and that, at the time, the Defendant, who was in charge of the field manager of E site located in Daegu D, would connect the Plaintiff with “A, a state office of KRW 100 million, would be able to receive C orders, such as the ground-breaking at the apartment construction site where he is in charge of the site manager.”

On October 21, 2011, the Plaintiff rendered the Standing F of C, and paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant as the street funds.

However, the defendant did not get the construction work to be ordered, but did not locked.

The defendant is obligated to return KRW 100 million to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that F paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant is insufficient solely on the basis of the statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

B. The agreement to pay rebates in return for a subcontract for a construction work is not only a tort strictly prohibited under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the Criminal Act, etc., but also a tort that restricts the choice of a contractor with adequate execution capacity and may cause serious risks to the lives and property of the general public by causing problems such as defective construction, etc., and it is an act that causes a result detrimental to the general public, such as causing tax evasion by raising funds to a contractor, etc., which is contrary to good morals and other social order, and thus, the illegality of any one of the provider and the receiver

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant for the purpose of receiving orders for construction works. The assertion itself constitutes illegal consideration and thus, it is not allowed to claim the return thereof.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da116499 Decided May 29, 2014). 3. The Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion is dismissed on the grounds that it is reasonable.