1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff wired KRW 160 million to the Defendant on October 27, 2014, and KRW 160 million on November 17, 2017 of the same year. At the time, the Defendant agreed to return the said money if he/she did not obtain approval for removal of miscellaneous land on a parcel outside 63,669 square meters of land in Tong-gu, Tong-gu, 2014, until December 15, 2014.

2. The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 17 billion to the Defendant’s D Bank account to KRW 27 billion on October 27, 2014 and KRW 60 million on November 17, 201 of the same year has no dispute between the parties.

However, as to whether there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to whether there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a health care unit and a cash custody certificate (A No. 1) cannot be deemed as evidence since the said agreement was not recognized, and the entries of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 alone are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(3) If a witness E’s testimony and evidence Nos. 10, 13 are deemed to have been affixed with the seal of the Defendant, the seal of the Defendant is recognized in light of the overall purport of the pleadings. As to whether F had the authority to affix the seal of the Defendant at the time, it is insufficient to recognize the seal solely on the statement of health, witness E’s testimony, and witness No. 3., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if F had such authority, the Defendant appears to have agreed to return in the status of the agent of G Co., Ltd. under the language and text of the cash custody certificate, and it is difficult to see that the subject to the obligation to return according to the agreement is the Defendant).3. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.