1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with D, a licensed real estate agent, to purchase the land located in and the five-story above the land located in the Gu Government-si and its ground-based building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 1.45 billion.

B. On September 28, 2012, G, the representative director of the Plaintiff, “E, from time to time, has to buy a building by paying the down payment, as soon as the E sells the building and alters the horse,” and “C, as the down payment and the back payment, KRW 150 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, was paid

However, E, a seller, did not demand KRW 150 million as above.

C. D was indicted as the District Court Decision 2014Da1482 on August 12, 2014 due to the act of deceiving KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff, and was sentenced to imprisonment on August 12, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as the withdrawal of D’s appeal on September 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the primary claim asserts that D, as unjust enrichment, has the obligation to return KRW 90 million to Defendant B and KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on October 4, 2012, each of which was donated to Defendant C with KRW 150 million on the cashier’s checks of KRW 150 million at par value, and then, the Defendants acquired each of the above amounts without any legal cause, thereby gaining profits and thereby causing loss to the Plaintiff. Therefore, Defendant B, as unjust enrichment, is obligated to return KRW 90 million to Defendant C and KRW 30 million to Defendant C.

If D, as alleged in the Plaintiff, donated each of the above money to the Defendants, even though it was obtained by the Plaintiff, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have acquired each of the money through donation without any legal ground. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is more asserted.