1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 19, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million (hereinafter “instant referral fee”) to C for the purpose of arranging a license to operate the brine restaurant in the construction site of “D” in the construction site of “D” (hereinafter “instant brine restaurant”). Of them, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50 million in C’s account in the name of East E.

B. C deposited each of the deposited KRW 29 million to the Defendant on March 19, 2012, and KRW 10 million on March 20, 2012 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant monetary payment”), and deposited KRW 862.25 million in total from April 16, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant act of monetary payment”) C.

In the event that the Plaintiff was unable to obtain the right to operate the instant warship, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint with the purport that “C, despite the absence of the capacity to intermediate the instant right to operate the instant cafeteria, is not clear whether it is the representative executive director of the said cafeteria. In collusion with the foregoing, the Plaintiff would have been able to grant the right to operate the instant cafeteria, and that the Plaintiff acquired money by deceiving the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff, such as accepting a part of the introduction cost, without stating that he/she has the right to operate the said cafeteria.”

C was subject to a disposition of no suspicion on September 17, 2013 on the ground that “it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff was deceiving.”

The Plaintiff filed a claim for return of agreed amount (No. 2013da41967) with the content that the Plaintiff seeks to return the instant introduction fee against E.

In the above lawsuit, the counterpart who paid the introduction fee related to the right to operate the restaurant was rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the contents of withdrawal of the plaintiff's lawsuit on the ground that he is not E, but C and G, and the above ruling of recommending reconciliation was finalized around that time.

E. The Plaintiff again filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the agreed amount (this Court 2014Da24280) against C to return the instant introduction fee.

May 2015