1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she ordered C, using the trade name “B”, to order the Defendant to supply cables, and wired KRW 50 million to the Defendant as a price therefor.

However, the defendant did not supply the goods, and the above 50 million won is claimed for restitution due to the cancellation of the sales contract.

Even if the plaintiff is not a party to the goods contract, the defendant is obligated to return the above money with unjust enrichment.

2. Determination

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 1 through 4, and 8, the plaintiff wired KRW 50 million to the defendant on April 9, 2015, and remitted KRW 50 million to "B" used by the depositor C. ② However, C was unable to pay the defendant the price of the goods of KRW 204,009,322 until the date of the above remittance, and the defendant deducted KRW 50 million from the amount of the sales claim, ③ on October 28, 2015, the Seoul Western District Court held that "A was used only only for the purchase of electric wires, and most other amounts were used for the repayment of existing debts, and charged the plaintiff with the money of KRW 360,000 through 39,000,000,000,000 from the plaintiff."

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts, the witness C’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the witness C testified to the effect that “the party to the goods supply contract is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff is obligated to pay any balance.” The Defendant testified to the effect that “The Defendant would have the Plaintiff pay the balance on behalf of the Plaintiff for the reason that there is a large amount of debt.” ② If the Plaintiff is a party to the goods contract entered into between the Defendant, there is no reason to transfer KRW 50 million in the name of C, and ③ the Plaintiff is in a criminal case, the amount of KRW 50 million.