1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment added by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and such reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. In the first place of the Plaintiff’s housing site development zone, the Plaintiff lent KRW 64 million to the Defendant under the pretext of good offices to obtain a successful bid for the removal construction work in the instant housing site development zone, but the Defendant failed to comply with the above good offices and thereafter failed to pay KRW 64 million on several occasions.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek against the Defendant the payment of the above loan amounting to KRW 64 million and damages for delay.

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 64 million to the Defendant without any legal ground, thereby gaining a profit equivalent to the above money. Since the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

B. In order to obtain a contract for construction work amounting to 15 billion won, the Plaintiff prepared the instant contract with the instant company and provided money to KRW 64 million as office operating expenses, and did not lend money to the Defendant’s account. Since the instant company did not have a bank account and received a remittance of KRW 64 million to the Defendant’s account used by the instant company, it is not the Defendant’s individual but the entity that received the payment of KRW 64 million as well as the instant company.

3. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the claim for a loan (or agreed amount) cannot be seen as a “loan” in that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant, “The Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 64 million to the Defendant for the purpose of arranging the contract for the removal of the housing site development zone in this case” (No. 8). This cannot be viewed as a “loan” in that the payment of money under such pretext is not a premise for the obligation to return where the money is given in general under the pretext of good offices.