1. In case of Defendant Jeong Ho Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s comprehensive construction cost of KRW 500,000,000 and its amount from March 21, 2014 to April 14, 2016.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Jeong Jong Construction Co., Ltd.

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s claim indication 1) around March 2014, B (hereinafter “B”).

B) The agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the transfer of business to transfer the comprehensive waste recycling permission, etc. in the name of the Plaintiff to KRW 500,000,000 (hereinafter “the agreement”).

(2) On March 21, 2014, Defendant A transferred KRW 500,000,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Plaintiff for the transfer of the instant case.

3) Defendant A, who received prior approval from the Plaintiff and obtained official seal from the Plaintiff, had KRW 500,000,000 from the above Agricultural Cooperative head on the same day (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Party A’s Comprehensive Construction”).

(4) Defendant Jeong Ho has no legal title to hold 500,000,000 won between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and thus, is obligated to return it.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against Defendant A is premised on the fact that KRW 500,000,000 has been reverted to Defendant A.

However, according to the evidence No. 5-2, the fact that KRW 500,000,000 deposited in the Plaintiff’s account is deemed to have been transferred to the Defendant U.S. comprehensive construction account, but it is difficult to recognize that the above fact of recognition alone belongs to the Defendant A.

In addition, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the fact that KRW 500,000 belongs to Defendant A, the Plaintiff’s assertion alone cannot be said to have obtained the benefit of KRW 500,000,000 without any legal cause. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim for the comprehensive construction of defendant Jeong-man is justified, and the claim against the defendant Gap is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.