1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant issued a tax invoice as a statistical program development service to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2014, and received KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff, but there was no provision of any service in relation to the development of the statistical program. Therefore, the Defendant should return KRW 100,000,000 received from the Plaintiff without any legal cause.

The defendant asserts that at the request of the plaintiff from February 2014 to July 2014, the defendant provided services such as production and management of the program that the plaintiff wants, including the plaintiff's website and shopping mall production, from time to time, and received KRW 100,000,000 as a legitimate service price.

B. Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,00 to the Defendant around July 2014, there is no dispute between the parties, the issue of the instant case is whether the service contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant.

Under the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 6-1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant could not submit documents related to the service contract, etc. which are the grounds for payment as evidence, and ② the materials submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff (Evidence No. 1) are unrelated to the plaintiff who is engaged in manufacturing and selling carbon materials as a result of the clothing company's shopping mall development. The items of the tax invoice issued by the defendant are different from the "statistical Program Development Services (1 to 5th)". ③ The plaintiff constructed and operated the plaintiff's web-site and shopping mall through Brazil.