1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff supplied 8,313,00 won oil to C who drives a dump truck in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the above oil price, as he/she used the dump truck without paying KRW 8,313,000 to the Plaintiff, even though he/she received the fare for the said dump truck on behalf of C.

However, insofar as it is difficult to view that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was liable to pay the oil price to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff merely because the fare of dump truck was paid to the Defendant like the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to

Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, each entry in the evidence Nos. 1-6 (including a serial number if any), it is recognized only that the Defendant had a truck name for co-defendant C, and that the Defendant was paid the freight charge in the name of the head of the passbook in the name of the Defendant, and returned the amount of restriction on installment payments, value-added tax, etc. to Co-Defendant C

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.