1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The South-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri and the Plaintiff Pung-ri-do environment are companies with the objective of paper recycling and treatment business, and the Defendant is a company with the purpose of wholesale and retail business.

B. On February 9, 2015, Han Nam-ri was supplied by the Defendant with a wave (the paper A4 form in the state of de facto abolition; hereinafter the same shall apply) and paid the price. The trading volume in 2015 was KRW 285,515,946.

C. On October 26, 2015, the Plaintiff Pream Environment was supplied with a land by the Defendant and paid the price. The trading volume in 2015 and 2016 was KRW 446,73,989 (=158,400,247 won).

On November 29, 2016, the decision on the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the South-North Docing was made, and the plaintiff A was appointed as the administrator.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Defendant intentionally increased the weight of the drinking water in a place where it is stored in a place where it is stored. The Defendant intentionally increased the weight of the drinking water in a place where it is stored.

The Defendant supplied water to Hannam-ri, the Hannam-ri, and the Plaintiff Plux Environment, as if it was the normal weight of the water that increased the weight of drinking water.

B. The actual weight of the land supplied by Hannam-ri and the Plaintiff Puldo Environment is about 5.8 tons, and the Defendant received the payment of the land price on the premise that the land price was supplied about 10 tons. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the difference to the Plaintiffs.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment return amounting to KRW 104,298,130, and the amount equivalent to the difference in the Plaintiff’s Green Environment, KRW 161,97,90, and delay damages therefrom.

3. According to the images of Gap evidence No. 5, it can be recognized that there is a water pool pool in the defendant's workplace, and there is part of the land lot in the water pool.