1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant on November 14, 2014, the Plaintiff is the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and the Defendant is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) (hereinafter “D”), and there is no dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged based on the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2.

2. The plaintiff asserts that, with respect to the commercial buildings sold in lots by D, C has first kept 50 million won as the declaration of intention to carry out the sales agency business and agreed on the sales agency contract, and then, the above 50 million won was paid as the condition that the sales agency contract was given. Since the sales agency contract was not formed between D and C, the defendant has a duty to return the above money as unjust enrichment. (2) The above 50 million won was kept by the defendant in order to consult on the sales agency contract between D and C. In addition, since the sales agency contract was not concluded and C did not carry out the sales agency business, the defendant has a duty to return the money in lots.

First, as to the plaintiff's primary argument, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that "the conclusion or non-Conclusion of a parcelling-out agency contract between D and C" was added as a condition of suspension or cancellation, with regard to the above payment of KRW 50 million, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the plaintiff's primary argument is without merit.

Next, the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion is understood as a premise that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff would return the above 50 million won if the sales agency contract was not concluded. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is the same as that between the plaintiff and the defendant.