1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2012, the Plaintiff entrusted C with the field management of the Plaintiff and E (the Plaintiff’s representative)’s account (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s account”) in the name of the Plaintiff and E (the Plaintiff’s representative) while delegating C with the field management of the construction work that newly constructs studio on the ground, such as Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, etc.

B. C transfers KRW 238,00,000 from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “Defendant’s account”) between June 19, 2012 and December 26, 2012, and received KRW 232,762,00 from the Defendant’s account to the Plaintiff’s account.

On March 4, 2013, upon C’s request, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account.

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The transaction between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant’s account is a contract for the payment of construction cost, and the settlement relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is established, and 35,238,000 won (=238,000,000 won - 232,762,000 won - 30,000,000 won) remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account is an amount remitted by mistake, and thus, the Defendant gains unjust enrichment without any legal cause. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment of KRW 35,238,00 and delay damages.

B. The defendant argues to the effect that "The defendant, upon the request of C, informed C of the defendant's account number, withdrawn the money remitted to the defendant's account and delivered it to C, and there is no transaction with the plaintiff."

The evidence submitted alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that a contract for construction has been concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the details of deposit and withdrawal between the Plaintiff’s account and the Defendant’s account constitute the construction cost transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or the said details of deposit and withdrawal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.