1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Upon the instant claim, the Plaintiff received KRW 11,00,000 from the Plaintiff on February 19, 2013 for the common use of F vehicle (hereinafter “First Vehicle”). Since continuing damage incurred, the Plaintiff did not return KRW 6,100,000 out of the said money to the Plaintiff, even though the deceased demanded the return of the said money, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff jointly use the vehicle. On March 1, 2013, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff purchase KRW 130,00,000 of the G vehicle (hereinafter “Second Vehicle”) and paid KRW 5,00,000 in lieu of the Plaintiff’s heir, the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff was liable to return the down payment of KRW 1,00,000 in lieu of the Plaintiff’s heir, and that the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 10,000 in lieu of the Plaintiff’s unlawful profits to the Plaintiff.

B. Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Deceased, around February 17, 2013, concluded a contract for joint use of the instant vehicles from February 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant joint use contract”) with the Plaintiff on or around February 17, 2013. The facts of the recognition alone are difficult to deem that the Deceased unjust enrichment of each of the instant vehicles alleged by the Plaintiff. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Plaintiff and the Deceased appear to have engaged in the same business related to the operation of the instant vehicles 1 and 2 through the instant joint use contract, etc., and inasmuch as there is no assertion as to how kind of business relationship has been settled thereafter, the Plaintiff may demand the full bench to make the oral argument.