1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a corporation that runs the construction business, the defendant is a real estate broker, and the defendant introduced the construction contract to the plaintiff, which is ordered by the LAC.

B. On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50 million into the Defendant’s account (foreign exchange bank D). On September 4, 2015 and September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff appears to be a clerical error, although the written complaint was written in 2016.

Each cash of KRW 15 million was paid, and on November 13, 2015 and the 27th of the same month deposited KRW 10 million in each of the above accounts of the defendant.

(hereinafter “each of the instant money”). C.

The Defendant deposited KRW 20 million on August 21, 2015, KRW 10 million on the following day, and KRW 10 million on November 30, 2015, respectively, into the Plaintiff’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s claim No. 1.B at the Defendant’s request.

The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff, on December 2, 2015, with a loan of KRW 20 million in cash, KRW 120 million in total, and KRW 40 million. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff.

Preliminaryly, the Defendant received the above money from the Plaintiff without any legal ground, and thereby making profits therefrom, thereby causing losses to the Plaintiff, and thus the Defendant shall return the amount of KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff stated in the preparatory brief dated March 14, 2019 that “the Defendant has the obligation to refund the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 60 million and the delay damages thereon,” and as the conjunctive claim, “the Defendant has the obligation to return the loan amounting to KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff in unjust enrichment,” but did not modify the purport of the claim.

B. The facts that the plaintiff paid a total of KRW 100 million to the defendant and the defendant returned KRW 40 million to the plaintiff are as seen earlier.

However, there was money acceptance between the parties.