1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a construction contract under the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the D construction work in Sejong City (hereinafter “instant construction work”). The actual construction work was conducted by the limited company E (hereinafter “E”).

Accordingly, around June 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with F to the instant construction project. Around June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff was transferred KRW 134,000 to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of F to the advance payment.

B. Meanwhile, E requested the Defendant to select a tax invoice, etc. while paying the outstanding amount for G, a representative, and granting the right to supply materials. The Defendant issued a tax invoice on June 29, 2016, stating that “B (the Defendant’s representative), the Plaintiff, the recipient, and the value of supply 36 million won (including value-added tax)”.

C. Since July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff wired KRW 36 million out of the advance payment received from F to the Defendant’s account under the name of E at the request of E, and the Defendant, out of the same day, remitted KRW 28.7 million, excluding KRW 4030,000 and KRW 3270,000,000,000, which should be received from E, to the H’s account as a director.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 7 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim (1) The Plaintiff received a written estimate from the Defendant on the price of wood and system floors to be used at the instant construction site, and remitted KRW 36 million to the Defendant on July 4, 2016, as the price of goods, but the Defendant issued only a tax invoice and did not supply goods equivalent to the said price of goods.

(2) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 36 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim is based on the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a commodity supply contract relating to the instant construction project.

However, the Plaintiff.