1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around August 29, 2012, the Defendant supplied and completed the new construction of the pentle (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground level C from the Plaintiff, and completed the construction on May 24, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 149,830,000 to the Defendant for the construction cost of the instant building.

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff was transferred to the instant building and is operating the pen.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On May 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the construction fund to help the Plaintiff to supply ready-mixeds necessary for the Defendant’s new construction work under the name of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to construct the Plaintiff’s pent at actual cost.

Although the Plaintiff’s new pension construction cost is not more than KRW 75,000,000, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 149,830,000.

Therefore, the defendant must return to the plaintiff 74,830,000 won in excess of the cost of new construction which was unjustly charged without any legal ground.

B. In the return of unjust enrichment due to payment, the person who claims the return of unjust enrichment bears the burden of proving that the cause of the payment is specified and the cause of the payment is null and void or cancelled, and the other party who received the payment does not have the burden of proving that the payment has a legal cause.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da54283 Decided May 14, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 98Da61593 Decided April 27, 1999, Supreme Court Decision 2008Da41574 Decided October 23, 2008, etc.). In light of such legal principles, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to the construction of the instant building at the intervals of construction by receiving only the actual cost from the Plaintiff.

(The testimony of the witness D applied by the Plaintiff is irrelevant to this). Therefore, the above actual cost is without any cause on the premise of the above agreement.