1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of C 1,787 square meters prior to the merger, D 14 square meters prior to the merger, E 453 square meters prior to the merger. The said three lots were merged on February 22, 2017, and C 2,254 square meters.

B. On August 17, 2007, the Defendant: (a) share 1/2 of the 98 square meters in a warehouse site for the Gu-si, Gu-si; and (b) share 15.3/17 of the G field 284 square meters in the Gu-si G field prior to the subdivision (However, on March 9, 2010, H field 264 square meters in G land prior to the said subdivision (hereinafter “instant land”).

(C) On February 22, 2017, the land category of each of the above land was changed to a road.

C. The Plaintiff’s foregoing on August 13, 2014

In order to use the land as an access road to a factory to be newly constructed on the land indicated in the port, 1/2 shares in the F warehouse site in the Gu, G 20 square meters, and 1.7/17 shares in each of the instant land.

On November 2014, the Defendant prepared a written consent for land use stating the consent period of land use as permanent from the date of permission in 2014 as “the consent period of land use” with the area of 150 square meters, G field 20 square meters, F warehouse site as “150 square meters, G field 20 square meters, 98 square meters among the instant land.”

E. The Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant on August 22, 2016 and KRW 30 million on August 23, 2016.

F. On February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant the share of 1.7/17 out of the instant land without compensation.

G. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use of the said newly-built factory.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 14, 15, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay KRW 35 million to the Defendant for the use of KRW 30,000,000 among the instant land in which the Plaintiff actually uses as a passage, and paid KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant. The said agreement constitutes an unfair juristic act under Article 104 of the Civil Act, since the Defendant was taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s imminent and difficult condition, and thus, the said agreement is null and void. Therefore, the Defendant should return the said unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination of the Civil Code