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 purchased the land (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Defendant and C and agreed to operate a partnership business to build a new building. The Plaintiff supported the Defendant’s account for self-sufficiency in the partnership business. While the Defendant and C excluded the Plaintiff from the partnership business, they agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff. The Defendant agreed to pay the amount of money that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff.

Until now, the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant is KRW 61,200,739, and the amount that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 237,807,609, and the remainder remaining after the Plaintiff manages a new building as the Defendant’s account is KRW 126,320,478. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 247,072,652 (=61,20,739 – KRW 237,807,609 – KRW 126,320,478) and delay damages.

The defendant asserts that it does not borrow from the plaintiff with respect to the money that the plaintiff paid to the defendant and that it is not money to be settled. Thus, the defendant is deemed to have made unjust enrichment equivalent to the above money, so the above money should be returned to the plaintiff.

2. The evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff was to build a new building on the ground of the Defendant and C and the instant land.

It is insufficient to recognize that there has been an agreement or an agreement between the Plaintiff and its partners to settle the amount of money that the Plaintiff provided for the same business during the period of time when the Plaintiff was excluded from the same business, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim as the loan or the settlement amount is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's transfer of money from the plaintiff is unjust enrichment, but the plaintiff's own money is a partner.