1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the wholesale business of livestock products, and C was an employee of D, a meat processing supplier, and the Defendant is C’s spouse.

B. From April 19, 2018 to December 4, 2019, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 52,714,522 to the Defendant’s account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A No. 1, Witness C’s Testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's spouse C, the plaintiff's spouse, will allow the plaintiff to supply the goods.

The Plaintiff promised (as of April 6, 2020, the Plaintiff asserted that no contract for goods supply was entered into with C, such as a written preparations, etc.). The Plaintiff, upon the designation of C, remitted the total amount of goods to KRW 52,714,52 to the account in the name of the Defendant, and C did not supply the goods promised.

The defendant used the above money together with C for an individual purpose.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to return the price of goods paid to the plaintiff.

Since C promised to be responsible for the return of the money received to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, who appears to have used the money together with C, must make a change.

B. The defendant's husband (the defendant's husband) introduced a company with high interest rate to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff continued to pay interest rate to C, so that the plaintiff can pay interest rate properly from the company, and paid money to C as remuneration.

3. Determination

A. First, in a case where the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have sought the return of the goods price, the claim is premised on the fact that there was a goods supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant or the Plaintiff.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a contract for the supply of such goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, there is no reason to examine the remainder of the argument premised on this (the plaintiff himself/herself is also the defendant or C's goods supply contract).