The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit on the part of the Plaintiff’s spouse on November 26, 2014 in order to build two accommodation facilities for the third floor above the ground level of the 1st floor above the ground level (hereinafter referred to as “instant Ddong” and “instant E-dong”), and the FF corporation, which was contracted by the Plaintiff’s spouse, started the commencement of the said accommodation facilities on November 26, 2014, and obtained approval for the use on June 19, 2015.

B. Among the above accommodation facilities, the instant Dong had access roads adjacent to the existing road. However, the instant Edong did not have other access roads and it was possible to enter the said Dong only through the said Ddong if it did not construct a bridge on the G, a small river, a small river, which flows along the neighboring area. However, the Plaintiff obtained permission to occupy and use the bridge on October 28, 2014, and the F Co., Ltd continued to construct the bridge and completed the bridge on June 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant bridge”).

C. On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff sold the instant Dong in KRW 4.9 billion to H, and on April 10, 2015, sold the instant Dong in KRW 5.3 billion to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 12, 24 through 28, Eul evidence 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant purchased the instant E-dong through H, one’s own form, and the Plaintiff suspended the construction of the bridge by deeming that the Plaintiff’s owner of the instant D-dong and E-Dong relations with one’s relative and it is unnecessary to maintain a bridge for the instant E-dong, and the Defendant agreed to settle the construction cost on the completion date of the instant bridge (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and completed the instant bridge.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 130 million according to the instant agreement.

Even if not, the defendant shall return the amount equivalent to the construction cost of the bridge of this case as unjust enrichment.

B. The facts acknowledged earlier are the arguments.