1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's additional selective claims are all dismissed in this court.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties 1) The deceased F, the husband of the Plaintiff, was a person who operated an individual company mainly engaged in landscaping work, stone construction work, etc. with the Plaintiff’s trade name “E,” but died on July 27, 2007 (see Evidence A1 and 3). Although the above F’s heir was a wife and his father, the above I reported the renunciation of inheritance and received the report (Article 2007-Ma366 of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Madan366), and the Plaintiff was a sole heir of the above F (see Evidence A and 2). 2) The Defendant was a person who operated an individual company mainly engaged in stone processing and landscaping work with the trade name “G”.

(see Evidence A 5). (b)

F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. 10,000,000 won on July 14, 2006 (see Evidence A. 7) 10,000,000 won on August 2, 2006 (see Evidence A. 7)

(1) On April 1, 2006, Suduk Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Daduk Construction”).

2) From the ASEAN City D Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “D Corporation”) located in Asan City

2) On August 2, 2006, 2006, 10,000 won was directly paid to the Defendant, who is the business partner of the above F, as KRW 10,50,000, and the F had the Defendant, who is the business partner of the F, re-subcontracted in KRW 510,00,00.

(See Evidence Nos. 9 and 11 of A). 【Reason 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 11 of the Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 11 of the Grounds for Recognition (including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the entire pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 14, 2006, Claim Nos. 1 for the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 10,000,000) The above F refers to the part of the landscaping construction among the new construction works of the research Dong that was ordered by the H University around 2006 (hereinafter “instant H substitute landscaping construction”).

At the time, the defendant did not supply the above F with landscaping stone.

The defendant.