1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction of access roads to the electric housing complex development project, and reinforcement soil (hereinafter “instant construction”) executed on the land of 11841 square meters of land in Haan-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, and began the said construction from October 25, 2012.

B. On September 25, 2012, the Defendant paid KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff.

C. On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 60 million, including KRW 10 million, KRW 40 million on October 26, 2012, and KRW 60 million on November 28, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant KRW 60 million”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff received the construction cost of KRW 150 million from the Defendant, and thereafter, lent the instant KRW 60 million to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 60 million. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant received KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff merely received a partial refund of the construction cost of KRW 150 million, which was paid in advance by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff.

B. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant with the testimony of the witness witness D in the first instance trial. Rather, in full view of the entries in the evidence Nos. 4 and 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of witness F in the trial witness F, the Plaintiff is seeking payment of KRW 57,350,000 after deducting the total construction cost of KRW 147,350,000 from the total construction cost of KRW 147,350,000 in the transaction statement prepared by the Plaintiff. In relation to the settlement of the construction cost of the instant case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not mention about KRW 60,000 between the Defendant and the Defendant for about 8 to 9 times, and the Plaintiff should have paid KRW 60,000 among the Defendant.