1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On around 2010, Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the Comcom”) entered into an agreement on the introduction of integrated security control equipment with Nonparty Cata.com (hereinafter “Cata.”).

B. Cata.com subcontracted part of the services stipulated in the above contract to the Korean Computer Supervisor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Computer Supervisor”) in Korea (hereinafter “Korea Computer Supervisor appears to have changed its name to KC”); and the Korean Computer Supervisor re-subcontracted the Plaintiff with the “development of the information sharing portal site in the field of securities” (hereinafter “instant services”).

C. On June 23, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to re-subcontract the service of this case, as seen above, to the Defendant, and entered into a development service agreement with the Defendant for the instant service business (hereinafter “instant service agreement”). D.

In other words, the contract structure of the service work of this case is the plaintiff (re-subcontractor) who is the plaintiff (re-subcontractor) by the Korean Computer Supervisor (contractor) in Catata.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the basis for recognition, Gap 1’s statement, the result of the inquiry of the fact-finding reply on the compact of this court (as of July 1, 2014), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Return of unjust enrichment by the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 service cost: Development service cost stipulated in the instant service contract is KRW 51,70,000,000 in total of KRW 1.2 million, KRW 2 million, KRW 14.1 million, and KRW 30,90,000 in total; the first payment and the second payment are paid directly by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

However, the defendant, with respect to the third payment, was paid KRW 2080,000,00 to the third payment by the Korean computer supervisor, who is a superior company, more than the original service cost.

Therefore, the defendant should pay excessive amount to the plaintiff.