1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion is a creditor who holds a claim for a loan of KRW 70,00,000 against B, and since the claim for a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 70,000,000 against the defendant was received and the above order was served on the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 with the collection money.

2. As to whether the judgment B had a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 70,000 against the Defendant, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it with only the entries and videos of the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7 through 10, and 12, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the witness’s testimony, the Defendant is a trust company which entered into a trust contract with the D Housing Association (hereinafter “the instant association”) (hereinafter “the instant association”) and the trust company, with the whole purport of oral argument, as to whether the Plaintiff had a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 70,000 (hereinafter “the instant apartment”), and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 70,000 to the instant association on March 10, 206 and paid KRW 70,000 to the instant association on deposit of KRW 70,000 under the name of the Defendant’s trust agreement and the instant association on deposit of KRW 700,000,700.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that B has a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 70,000,000 against the defendant is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion.