1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

On October 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 69 million in total to D, on the ground that the Defendant’s representative director C was a partner of Defendant’s representative director C and that D, the actual operator of the Defendant, was able to receive a contract for the removal of an urban development project in the E district (hereinafter “E district removal project”), but did not receive the said construction contract.

The Plaintiff was refunded KRW 50 million from D, and the remainder of KRW 19 million was not returned, and the Defendant promised to pay the said money, thereby seeking a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 19 million against the Defendant.

(hereinafter “Claim 1”). Likewise, the Plaintiff paid KRW 65 million to D under the pretext that it would compel D to receive a contract for the removal of the F, but did not receive the contract for the said construction, and did not receive a refund of KRW 40 million from D, and did not return the remainder of KRW 25 million.

Since the Defendant promised to repay the above money, it sought a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 25 million against the Defendant.

(hereinafter “Second Claim”). From November 3, 2010 to May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff sought payment, as the Plaintiff transported forest waste, etc. at the Defendant’s request, and failed to receive KRW 60,775,000 as the price was paid.

(hereinafter “Third Claim”). For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant a total of KRW 104,775,000 (= KRW 25,000,000,000) and damages for delay therefrom.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the description of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the claims Nos. 1 and 2, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 69 million in total with respect to the removal of the E area to Dong, a student of the Defendant representative director C from October 17, 2014 to April 15, 2016, and that paid KRW 65 million in total with respect to F removal works.

However, it is recognized that the Defendant promised to pay each of the above amounts to the Plaintiff only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including the number of branch numbers).