1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to undertake approximately KRW 180,00 among the C Corporation, and agreed to grant the Plaintiff the business right to the said construction by establishing a partnership relationship with the Plaintiff, etc., and the Defendant requested KRW 70,000,000 as the contractor for the said construction project.

Accordingly, on September 11, 2009, the Plaintiff delivered the above KRW 70 million to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff delivered the above KRW 70 million to D as the contractor and concluded a provisional contract for the said contract.

On the other hand, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to return the above KRW 70 million to the plaintiff if the defendant is unable to receive the above construction works, and since the construction works are not held, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 70 million in accordance with the above agreement.

B. Since there is no reason attributable to the defendant for the failure to pay the above construction cost, the defendant claims for the return of the above KRW 70 million against D, the defendant makes unjust enrichment against the above KRW 70 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 70 million won as unjust enrichment to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. First, as to the primary claim, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff concluded the above return agreement as asserted by the witness E with the health team, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8 (including each number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

B. Next, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the conjunctive claim itself delivered KRW 70 million to the Defendant according to the Plaintiff’s intention cannot be deemed to have no legal ground for the payment of the above amount. There is no legal ground or evidence to deem that the Defendant should return the above amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, solely on the ground that there was a monetary payment claim amounting to KRW 70 million to D, and that there is no legal ground or evidence to deem that the Defendant should return the above amount to D as unjust enrichment.

Therefore, it is true.