1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) ordered C-Newly built construction of a factory from Company B; (b) ordered D the lower office in the construction site; and (c) D entered into a sub-subcontract or a goods supply contract with the Defendant et al.; (b) however, the tax invoice was issued in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff carried out the construction by paying the Plaintiff directly

However, at the request of D, the Defendant received not only the amount of goods supplied at the construction site of this case but also the amount of KRW 22 million supplied at another construction site, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the said amount of KRW 22 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2. However, even if the price of goods for the construction site, other than the instant construction site, paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, includes the price of goods for another construction site, which is not the instant construction site, such fact constitutes a direct payment to the Defendant by reducing the process of paying the construction cost that the Plaintiff would pay to D. Thus, the Defendant is merely a receipt of the price of goods supplied under a contract with D through the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot make a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant, separate from the fact that the plaintiff can make a claim for return of unjust enrichment against D.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da63884 Decided June 26, 2008). 3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.