1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On December 22, 2011, when the Plaintiff introduced the Defendant, a non-registered money exchanger, through D’s introduction that he/she became aware of through C while the Plaintiff was in need of China, and transferred won currency to the Defendant’s account on December 22, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer transfer the transfer to the Plaintiff’s Chinese Bank account at the time of the Plaintiff’s official duty, and remitted KRW 57,280,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant money”). The Defendant did not transfer the money to the Defendant.

The defendant has a duty to return the above amount to unjust enrichment, or to compensate for the damages because he has obtained the money of this case by deceiving the plaintiff without any legal ground, and has inflicted damages equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant alleged that he did not know the plaintiff and did not engage in money exchange transactions with the plaintiff.

Plaintiff

57,280,00 won deposited in the defendant account in the name of the defendant account is deposited according to the exchange transaction with E and accordingly, he transferred the bill 285,000 to the account designated by E, and thus, he did not obtain unjust enrichment from the plaintiff.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3-8 of evidence Nos. 3-8, it is recognized that the Plaintiff remitted the total of KRW 57,280,000 to the national bank account (Account Number F) in the Defendant’s name on December 22, 2011, including KRW 54,50,000, and KRW 2,730,000.

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff agreed to exchange transactions with the Defendant and paid money. The entry of Nos. 12-1 and 2 as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to believe in light of the Plaintiff’s statement No. 4-1 and 5, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to engage in such transactions as alleged by the Plaintiff, and rather, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 4-1 and 5, the Plaintiff sought the method of exchange with D and D are under the name of the Defendant.