The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. In around 2016, the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with D (hereinafter “D”) for the construction of the Seo-gu Incheon E building (hereinafter “instant construction”), and the Defendant was awarded a contract for the interior works during the said construction.

However, around February 2018, D requested the Plaintiff to lend KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s account on February 5, 2018.

Thus, the company that borrowed KRW 100 million from the plaintiff is the defendant, and the defendant must pay the loan to the plaintiff.

B. Even if the Defendant cannot be deemed to have borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, and without any legal cause, obtained profit equivalent to KRW 100 million, and thus, returned the amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s account on February 5, 2018 is no dispute between the parties.

However, the following circumstances can be acknowledged in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 where the purport of the entire pleadings can be neglected, namely, although the loan claimed by the plaintiff is not less than KRW 100 million, the documents proving the lending relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant have not been prepared, and even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the defendant upon D's request. As such, the plaintiff did not have any direct legal relations between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff stated "short-term loan" in the plaintiff's business partner's president as "short-term loan", so it is argued to the purport that the plaintiff shall be deemed to lend KRW 100 million to the defendant. However, it is difficult to view that the money was directly lent to the defendant on the basis of the document prepared and prepared for internal accounting of the plaintiff, and the F, D's employee, while performing the construction in this case