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 an internal director of C (hereinafter “C”) and the Defendant is the representative director of C. On May 20, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a provisional contract on the construction of five stories (hereinafter “instant building”) on the land surface of 1531 square meters in the Suwon-si District D 1531 square meters owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant provisional contract”).

B. At the time of the instant provisional contract, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., KRW 500,00

C. On November 18, 2009, the instant provisional contract was concluded between C and C on November 18, 2009, and on December 29, 2009, a contract was concluded to change the name of the contractor C from C to the Plaintiff.

On January 14, 2010, the Plaintiff issued a receipt to receive KRW 1 billion as contract performance guarantee amount under the name of the Plaintiff.

E. (1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Suwon District Court seeking the return of the construction cost that was paid in excess of Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court. In the lawsuit above, the lawsuit also dealt with the reversion of the performance bond by asserting that the cream case offsets the Plaintiff’s claim for return of the contract performance deposit against the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment. On October 16, 2012, the above court ruled that on October 16, 2012, the contract performance bond of KRW 1,000,000 should be reverted to the Plaintiff on the ground that the contract between the Plaintiff and the cream case was lawfully terminated due to the nonperformance of the cream.

(U) The Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2011Gahap13858 decided October 16, 2012). (2) On the other hand, the appellate court of the above case, and the Seoul High Court on June 12, 2013.