1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 21,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 21, 2014 to November 11, 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to conclude a “free season” construction contract, and paid KRW 21,00,000 to the Defendant as a provisional contract deposit to conclude the said contract, and the fact that the said construction contract was not concluded thereafter is either disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries and arguments in subparagraph 1, subparagraph 1, and subparagraph 1, and the purport of all pleadings. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 21,00,000 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The plaintiff asserts that since Eul paid KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff as part of the above provisional contract amount, the above amount should also be refunded from the defendant, but the evidence No. 2 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the claim for this part shall not be accepted.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's agent B had already returned KRW 21,000,000 to B, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. In full view of each of the above evidence, witness C’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged.

1) B on behalf of the Plaintiff, has been performing duties concerning the freezing construction contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. (2) On September 29, 201, the Defendant received KRW 21,000,000 from the Plaintiff as the provisional contract amount of the said construction contract, around 52, 201.

However, immediately after that, B called “the down payment was sent to the Defendant because it was urgently needed to pay the open store,” and the Defendant returned the above KRW 21,000,000 to B around 15:08 on the same day.

3 The defendant D, as the defendant, stated that Eul voluntarily declared that "the person is acting upon delegation of the right from the plaintiff" to the defendant's side, and in relation to the contract, the plaintiff directly talks with or exchanges contact with the plaintiff.