1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs soil and stones, soil and sand gathering, wholesale and retail business, etc., and the Defendant is a company that runs aggregate wholesale and retail business.

B. Around 2014, the Defendant: (a) prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a letter of delegation and a letter of commitment that delegated the right to mine, supply, and sell borrow-pits on the land B in Seosan-si (hereinafter “Seosan-si”); and (b) delegated the right to develop.

C. On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 18 million to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument by the parties to the dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 7, and the purport of the whole argument was by deceiving the plaintiff as if he had the transportation right, extraction right, development right, etc. relating to the soil exploitation in Seosan City

Accordingly, on March 23, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to C, which is the actual operator of the Defendant, and KRW 50 million on March 25, 201, respectively. On July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 18 million to the Defendant.

In addition, on February 4, 2015, C prepared a written confirmation to the effect that “the Plaintiff would make a direct payment by August 2015, since it received KRW 200,000,00 which the Plaintiff paid to C Green Development Co., Ltd.” and issued it to the Plaintiff.

The defendant has a duty to return KRW 318 million (=50 million + KRW 50 million + + KRW 18 million + KRW 20 million) by deceiving and deceiving the plaintiff.

On July 1, 2015, the plaintiff alleged by the defendant that he remitted 18 million won to the defendant on July 1, 2015, was used as part of the recovery deposit deposited in Seosan View, not by the defendant, but by the defendant.

The above money has not been returned because the completion inspection has not been completed yet.

The remaining KRW 300 million claimed by the Plaintiff is related to C, and the Defendant has not received it.

C is the representative of corporation D and is not related to the defendant.

Judgment

The evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11, remitted on July 1, 2015, is insufficient to recognize that the defendant deceivings the plaintiff in relation to the soil exploitation in Seocho-si only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11.