1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment due to the Plaintiff’s impossibility of follow-up.

A. On January 6, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) received a demand for household construction from the Dondi Urban Development Corporation for the construction of officetels; and (b) on February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Plaintiff to subcontract the construction cost of KRW 200,000,000 among the said household construction (hereinafter “instant subcontract”); and (c) paid KRW 100,000,00 as advance payment; and (d) the Dondi Urban Development Corporation was unable to perform its obligations under the instant subcontract due to the cancellation of the subcontract for the said household construction, and thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the construction cost to the Defendant was extinguished. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the money that the Plaintiff received as advance payment.

B. The Defendant’s conclusion that the instant subcontract was concluded with the Plaintiff on February 10, 2015, and received KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties, but there is no evidence to prove that the obligation pursuant to the instant subcontract was impossible due to a cause not attributable to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2. Determination on the claim for restitution following exercise of the right to rescind the contract

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the subcontract of this case reserved the right of rescission, and accordingly the plaintiff cancelled the subcontract of this case, so the defendant is obligated to return the money received as advance payment to the plaintiff.

B. It is insufficient to acknowledge that the right to rescind an agreement was reserved only with the statement of No. 3 and the testimony of the witness A, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim for restitution following the cancellation due to nonperformance

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant’s contract bond 100,000,000 won as the contract bond to the Plaintiff.