1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive the payment of the cost of the instant goods (hereinafter “instant goods”) and paid KRW 160,000,000 to the Defendant on August 31, 2017. The Defendant did not supply the instant goods to the Plaintiff and thus the Plaintiff cancelled the instant contract on this ground. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the price of KRW 160,000,000 to the Plaintiff as restitution, and even if not, the Defendant received the said money without any legal cause, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

In regard to this, the defendant did not have any transactional relationship between the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendant, and the price of this case is proved to have been repaid in lieu of the unpaid payment to the defendant of the corporation C (hereinafter "the corporation outside the lawsuit").

2. As alleged in the Plaintiff, as to the fact that a contract for the supply of the goods of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is difficult to believe that the entry of No. 2-2 was made with respect to the goods of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, considering the purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 1 through No. 4, Eul evidence No. 5-1 through No. 5-4, Eul evidence No. 8-2, Eul evidence No. 9-1 through No. 11-2, Eul evidence No. 11, No. 11-2, the whole purport of the arguments, the defendant produced and supplied to the non-party company on April 30, 2017, the price was paid to the non-party company as KRW 30,000, 1000, 300, 1000, 300, 1000, 300, 400, 1008, 100.

8. 25. The fact that the non-party company received KRW 180,000,000 among them, and ② the above agreed.