1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Requests for restitution of unjust enrichment:

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was crypted from the Defendant, who worked at the construction site of the (ju) Hohoho T&C with D, to the effect that “I would not engage in an illegal work to the Korea Gas Corporation without giving money to the Defendant, because I would have come to be unable to work in another construction site because I would not know that I would not work in good faith.”

(e)In conclusion, the Plaintiff, who was apprehended to cause damage in good faith to the Defendant on November 22, 2013, remitted to the Defendant KRW 4 million around the same month, KRW 11 million around the 25th day of the same month, KRW 4 million around February 28, 2014, KRW 19 million in total, and KRW 19 million around February 28, 2014.

Since the defendant's act constitutes a coercion and received money from the plaintiff without any ground, the above 19 million won must be returned to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 4 million to the Defendant on November 22, 2013, KRW 11 million on or around the 25th of the same month, KRW 4 million on or around February 28, 2014, and KRW 19 million on or around February 28, 2014 does not conflict between the parties.

However, as alleged by the plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the transfer due to the failure of the defendant to make a transfer as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to change the points.

Rather, according to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant was indicted for a crime of conflict with the contents as alleged by the Plaintiff, but was rendered a judgment of not guilty on January 24, 2017 ( Daejeon District Court 2016No1452), the prosecutor’s appeal on January 17, 2018 was dismissed (No. 2017No412 of the same court), and the judgment of not guilty on January 25, 2018 is only recognized.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is groundless.

2. Claim for return of the borrowed amount;

A. A. Around October 2015, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around October 2015, the Defendant loaned KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, and (b) the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Plaintiff on the condition that he/she would have paid off his/her work; and (c) on October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed money to the Defendant.