1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) working for the Defendant (hereinafter “C”) performed the business of newly constructing and selling apartment units in D in the Papju City of Pakistan, around 2014, and the said Ampha was to set up an electronic library, health center, and English class to the occupants, and entered into a contract for the establishment of an electronic library mobile infrastructure with E (hereinafter “E”) for this purpose.

B. The plaintiff is awarded a subcontract for the above construction work from E, and "the construction work of this case".

The defendant was in charge of overall affairs concerning the construction and sale of C.

C. The Plaintiff’s corporate bank account as the Defendant’s corporate bank account amounting to KRW 10 million on September 4, 2015, and the same year

9. 14.7 million won, and a total of 67 million won on August 5, 198 of the same year, were remitted. D.

The plaintiff and the defendant are above A.

On October 10, 2015, the date the principal was repaid, and on October 10, 2015, the loan certificate (A; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) was drawn up to the effect that the amount as stated in the subsection was borrowed at 24% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's primary assertion that the defendant should pay the loan to the plaintiff in accordance with the loan certificate of this case, and that the defendant is obligated to return the loan to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment unless the defendant proves that the above 67 million won was paid as the case cost.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s assertion was necessary to cooperate with C, the ordering authority, in order to undertake and complete the instant construction, and F, the representative of the Plaintiff, proposed payment of honorariums to the Defendant, who is the working party, and the Defendant was accepted and paid. Therefore, it is not only borrowed money but also it does not constitute unjust enrichment.

3. A total of 6,700 until October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff determined the claim for a loan to the Defendant.