1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant: (a) received construction cost of KRW 126 million from November 17, 2014 to January 1, 2015; and (b) concluded a contract under which the Defendant would construct an eco-friendly house of KRW 30 on the ground C and deliver it to the Plaintiff at permanent residence (hereinafter “instant contract for Plaintiff’s assertion”); (b) the Plaintiff paid the Defendant in advance as construction cost, the sum of KRW 120 million on November 17, 2014 and KRW 20 million on December 8, 2014, in accordance with the said contract.

However, the defendant only completed only the part corresponding to 64.49% of the above construction, and did not proceed with the construction thereafter.

Therefore, the construction cost to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant under the contract for the Plaintiff’s assertion was KRW 81,258,00,000, and KRW 38,742,00,00, which is the difference between the above KRW 81,258,000,000, which is the pre-paid construction cost of KRW 120,000,000, can be deemed as unjust enrichment by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned KRW 38,742,00 and its unjust enrichment and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant contract was concluded.

The defendant, at the permanent residence of the plaintiff, proposed that the plaintiff would allow the plaintiff to see the "D", which is an eco-friendly house with professional technology, and open the house after completion of the construction to the "D" and make it possible for the plaintiff to advertise in the relevant area. This accepted it and managed the construction work of eco-friendly house under the direct control of the plaintiff on the above land. The plaintiff deposited the passbook in the name of the plaintiff, and deposited the amount of KRW 10 million on November 17, 2014, and the amount of KRW 20 million on December 8, 2014, and the defendant executed it only for the construction cost of the above house while managing the passbook.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise of the instant contract cannot be complied with.

2. Determination A from No. 1 to.