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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s decision is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following dismissal, deletion, or addition, and the subsequent addition of the judgment as seen in Section 2. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420

○○ From the third side of the judgment of the first instance court, 2 OOOO's "O-O-OOOO's" is "O-O-O-7", 4 to 6-7 "OOO's seizure amount related to KRK," "the head of the Seocho District Office attached the claims of KRK and the collection order and the seizure order of the head of the Seocho District Office (the head of the Seocho District Office attached the claims of the Defendant of BB for the collection of additional value-added tax for the first half of the year of 2006 plus the additional charges of the value-added tax on October 25, 2006)". "OO's expense," 4 to 6-7, "OO's expense," 9-10, and 5-7," "the head of the Seocho District Office deleted the claims against the Defendant of BB for the collection of additional charges for the first half of the year of 2006."

○ 6.12 on pages 6.12, “Isia,” shall add:

According to the evidence Nos. 3, 24, and 2, the defendant in the contract of this case between BB and CCC and the defendant in the contract of this case and the contract of sale delegation between BB and the defendant can be recognized as "net contractor" (Article 3(2) of the contract term of this case of this construction contract of this case), as well as as as the contract of this case, as the contract of this case, guarantee the loan obligation of the project cost of BB and CCC, as a sales agent, and as a result, have the right to manage and execute the sale price claim in order to secure the payment of the contract cost and the sale cost, and accordingly have the right to manage and execute the sale price claim from BB and CCC, and the right to manage and execute the sale price claim in order to secure the payment of the contract cost and the sale cost, as well as the right to receive the distribution of the business profit, and the fact that BB and CCC is named as "the contractor and the transferee of the

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not pay the amount of delinquent tax as seen earlier even though the Defendant agreed to pay the amount necessary for BB’s payment of the value-added tax to BB and CCC, and that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of delinquent tax in arrears as a result of the agreement, or as a return of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of delinquent tax in arrears to BB by subrogation of BB.

However, as seen earlier, Article 10(4) of the contract terms and conditions of the instant construction contract merely provides that the order of use shall be changed to BB, CCC, and the defendant's agreement, and Article 10(2) provides that BB shall be performed in the name of BB and CCC. Furthermore, according to the evidence No. 3 of the instant construction contract, the tax accounting of the sales revenue shall be conducted in the name of BB and CCC. In addition, according to the tax accounting of the 10th project cost burden and contract scope of the instant construction contract, i.e., reporting and payment of national taxes, etc., BB and CCC shall be borne by B and CCC. Article 12 of the above contract terms and conditions provide that the payment date of the remainder of the construction price under paragraph (1) shall be three days from the expiration date of the designation period. Paragraph (3) provides that the Defendant shall be held liable for the payment of the construction price and late payment payment after the date of payment by each number under paragraph (1) and that the sales revenue amount shall be collected from each business operator for a certain period of output.

However, as can be seen above, the defendant, at around March 2006, completed the construction of this case around April 30, 2006 after the occupancy designation period expires. On May 2, 2006, prior to the expiration of the taxable period of the value-added tax (from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006) of non-lease 1, 2006, withdrawn and received the balance of the construction payment from the account of this case from the account of this case. The defendant did not receive the construction payment despite the arrival of the due date of the claim for the construction payment, and cannot be said to bear the duty to keep the amount equivalent to the value-added tax received from the purchaser of this case in order of payment of value-added tax for the first time period of value-added tax for 1, 2006. Accordingly, the defendant's payment of the construction payment can not be deemed to violate the order of BCC 10 and C20 to deposit the remaining amount in the account of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit, since the defendant still remains in money to be paid to BB under the agreement, or the defendant could not be said to have obtained unjust enrichment from the tax amount in arrears of BB.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of delinquent tax (this tax) remains more than that of the instant account, but the Defendant embezzled it without paying it to BB or CCC. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the entries of the evidence Nos. 19, 26, A No. 28-1, 2, 3, and 29 are insufficient to support that the number of members of the OOOO in the instant account remains more than that of the instant account, and there is no other evidence to support this, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.