1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 6, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that on the part of the Defendant and the Defendant’s mother C paid KRW 50 million in premium and deposit to the Defendant and C, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 50 million in advance from November 15, 2008, the right to operate the bate restaurant at the construction site of the apartment complex of Permitted apartment by November 15, 2008. The Defendant and C promised to return the above KRW 50 million in case the Defendant did not transfer the right to operate the cafeteria up to the present date, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to return the amount of KRW 50 million in unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the defendant's mother C entered into a restaurant operation agreement with the construction company on August 13, 2008 with the effect that the exclusive right to operate the cafeteria at the premises of the construction site of the new apartment site of the Dowonwon-si Seoul Special Metropolitan City is granted KRW 30 million from the construction company, and the plaintiff entered into a contract on the operation of the cafeteria on September 6, 2008 with the said cafeteria with the construction company on September 6, 2008, with the right to operate the cafeteria as a deposit amount of KRW 30 million,000,000,000 won and KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000 won was not commenced by November 15, 208.

In light of the fact that the nominal owner of a contract with Construction Co., Ltd or a loan certificate with the Plaintiff during the period of the restaurant operating right is C, and C is investigated by a veterinary institution in a case in which the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant and C for fraud, and that KRW 40 million out of the KRW 50 million received from the account in the name of the Defendant is returned to the previous contractor and the KRW 10 million was paid to Construction Co., Ltd during the period (written evidence No. 5), etc., the Defendant stated that the aforementioned facts or the written evidence No. 6 alone were paid to the previous contractor and used.