1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the first place, the Plaintiff decided to purchase heavy steel products from the Defendant with the introduction of B, and remitted KRW 20,023,360 to the Defendant’s corporate bank account. However, the Defendant’s supply of steel products was not made, and thus, the said goods contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) In the event there is no contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the price of the goods, given that the amount equivalent to the price of the goods paid by the Plaintiff was obtained unfairly without any legal ground, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the price of the goods.

B. The summary of the defendant's assertion did not have concluded the contract of this case with the plaintiff, and since the price of the goods remitted by the plaintiff was paid to both the plaintiff and the corporation C which actually concluded the contract of this case, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 as to the primary assertion, the Defendant received the money of KRW 20,023,360 from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s corporate bank account on November 6, 2012. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the Defendant received a false tax invoice from B running a corporation C by requesting the issuance of one tax invoice. Accordingly, the Defendant issued a tax invoice equivalent to the amount remitted from the Plaintiff to C in the name of a business entity operated by the Defendant, and argued that all of the above money was remitted to C, and according to the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the Defendant actually did so from the Plaintiff.