1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation of KRW 41,79,180 to the Defendant on February 2, 2014 does not exist.

2...

Basic Facts

On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for B construction works with the following contents:

[However, the name of the contractor shall be the "B" and the plaintiff was indicated as the representative] On January 29, 2015, the contract amount of KRW 759,000,000, the contract amount of KRW 30% of the down payment (payment corresponding to the National Bank PF) on the date of the contract (payment corresponding to the National Bank PF) of January 29, 2015, the balance of 20% (payment corresponding to the National Bank PF) of the construction progress of 80% of the construction progress (payment corresponding to the National Bank PF) on the date of the contract, the Defendant paid KRW 41,79,180 under the name of the plaintiff to the Korea Electric Power Corporation.

On April 4, 2016, the Defendant’s agent C sent to the Plaintiff a letter that if the Plaintiff had no intent for construction works on the Plaintiff’s request for materials related to construction, the Plaintiff sent the letter to the Plaintiff by content-certified mail that the Defendant requested the return of KRW 41,79,180 of the paid-in full-time deposit, the Defendant sent it to the Plaintiff around that time.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion by the parties did not borrow money from the defendant in the name of the full-time payment.

Before entering into the instant contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant has already received a contract for the construction of solar power plants from the Plaintiff’s neighboring network D, and the Plaintiff’s site for electric power plants in order to attract electricity to the site of the network D ought to pass through the site of the Plaintiff’s electric power plant. As such, the Plaintiff’s electric power plant payment regardless of the Plaintiff’s instant contract was not only the amount to be borne by the network D, but also the instant construction project did not start due to the Defendant’s mistake, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation

The defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff takes charge of the construction of this case to the defendant, and borrows the payment of the Korean electricity necessary to establish a solar power plant from the defendant.

Judgment

In a passive confirmation lawsuit, the plaintiff argues to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the claim first.