1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) for the construction of a building on the land outside Kimhae-si and one parcel (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). The Defendant is a person who was in office as a director of C at the time of the said contract.

B. On December 18, 2013, when the instant construction was in progress, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the said KRW 20 million at the Defendant’s request, as it lends the said KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff. Preliminaryly, even if the Defendant received the said money as the name of the construction cost, the Defendant did not deliver it to C, which is the recipient of the construction cost, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money by compensating for damages caused by the tort or by unjust enrichment. (2) The said money is not a loan, but a construction cost

The Defendant spent the above money as construction cost of the instant construction project.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 7 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings in the above facts and arguments, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the defendant on December 18, 2013 without setting the due date for repayment.

① The Plaintiff concluded the instant construction contract with C, who is not the Defendant, and thus, the right to receive the construction cost also remains C.

Unless there are special circumstances, the Plaintiff has no reason to pay the construction cost separately to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not return the money received from the Plaintiff to C’s account.

② The Plaintiff is founded at the new building.