1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that, on March 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the supply of goods, and made a prior payment of KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not supply goods under the above contract, and accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed the return of KRW 30 million.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant on March 28, 2015 as the performance of the goods supply contract. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 7-1, Eul evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 7-2, and Gap evidence and the whole purport of Gap evidence 1-2, Eul's testimony and argument, the owner of the building entered into a new contract for construction work between the plaintiff and Eul, and (2) the owner of the building in this case entered into a new contract for construction work between the plaintiff and Eul, and (3) the owner of the building in this case entered into a new contract for construction work between the plaintiff and the subcontractor, and (3) the owner of the building and the plaintiff decided not to be liable for the payment of the construction cost accrued to Eul at the time of the contractor's transfer.