1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 15, 2009, the Defendant entered into a sales contract to purchase KRW 380,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant forest”) forest land D 8,980 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “the instant forest”) with C, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 9, 2009 after paying the purchase price.

B. Meanwhile, on November 20, 2009, the Plaintiff remitted gold KRW 40,000,000 to E. On the other hand, on the 27th of the same month, E re-transfered the above KRW 40,000 to the Defendant’s account on the 27th of the same month, and the Defendant used the above KRW 40,000,000 as part of the intermediate payment for purchasing the forest of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The primary argument and judgment

A. The alleged plaintiff was recommended by the defendant to make an investment to jointly purchase the forest of this case and remitted KRW 40,000,000 to the E account designated by the defendant, but the defendant is obligated to return the above investment amount to the plaintiff 40,000,000,000, since the defendant formed a joint purchase agreement and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his own name.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly purchased the forest of this case and agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the joint name.

3. Preliminary argument and judgment

A. Even if the Defendant did not receive the above 40,000,000 won from the Plaintiff, it is clear that the Defendant used the above 40,000,000 won, which is the Plaintiff’s money in purchasing the forest of this case, and thus, the said money should be returned as unjust enrichment.

B. We examined the judgment, 40,000,000 won paid by the Plaintiff was used for the purchase of the forest of this case by the Defendant.

Even if such circumstance alone makes it difficult to see that the defendant obtained benefits without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, according to the witness E's testimony, E is any name from the plaintiff.