1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. On November 14, 2006, the Defendant issued a claim against Nonparty C as indicated in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Parts Agency (on the face of the representative) with the trade name “E” in Gyeongdong-gun D, G in the name of Nonparty C (hereinafter “H”), and the Defendant is a person who received automobile parts from the Plaintiff and supplied them to the Nonparty with the trade name “H” in the name of Nonparty C (hereinafter “E”).

B. After completing H’s business on November 14, 2006, the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s claim amounting to KRW 30,000,000 of the outstanding amount of part payment to the Nonparty (hereinafter “instant outstanding amount”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant transferred the outstanding amount to the plaintiff on November 14, 2006, but he was paid the outstanding amount from the non-party around October 2010, and thus, the plaintiff should return it to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that, among the claims to be recovered from the Nonparty, the amount was KRW 70 million, and among which, the amount was expressed by the Plaintiff as to the claims to be recovered from the Nonparty, KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000, excluding KRW 30,000,000,000, which was written by the Plaintiff, was paid from the Nonparty, and that there was no means to receive the reimbursement of the amount receivable from the Nonparty.

B. The records of evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and 7 submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant received the reimbursement of the outstanding amount from the Nonparty, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim based on this premise is without merit.

3. According to the facts of the determination as to the conjunctive claim under the above Paragraph 1, the defendant, the transferor of the receivables of this case, is the transferee.