1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. From January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015, the Defendant operated the public parking lot C in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the instant public parking lot).

B. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff participated in the instant public parking lot competitive bid, and operated the instant public parking lot from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, with its operating right awarded a successful bid.

C. During the operation of the instant public parking lot, the Defendant concluded an exclusive use contract for the off-road parking lot to enable truck owners who need the certificate of garage to obtain confirmation on the installation of the garage and received the payment for the payment. Of these, the Defendant concluded a contract for the use of the parking lot for the certification of the garage including the Plaintiff’s operation period exceeding the operation period until December 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, the result of fact-finding conducted by the Seoul High Court against the head of Eunpyeong-gu, the purport of the entire argument

2. Assertion and determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant did not have the right to operate the instant public parking lot from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, the Defendant entered into a contract for exclusive use of the parking lot including the above period for 40 trucks, and received 7,691,659 won in return for the benefit. During that period, the Defendant sustained damages equivalent to the price for the Plaintiff who had the right to operate the instant public parking lot, and thus, the Defendant shall return it to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

B. The fact that the Defendant entered into a contract on the use of a parking lot including the Plaintiff’s operating period for 40 trucks during the operation of the instant public parking lot, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to certify the garage.

However, in addition to the above evidence and the whole purport of arguments, the above 40 parking lot use contract for the defendant's above 40 trucks is concluded.