Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

The plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of business of installing, maintaining, and repairing consular and sound equipment, and the defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing informatization industry equipment, etc.

On March 15, 2019, the Plaintiff received an order from the Defendant for a consul (D-Cinema officer; hereinafter referred to as “cine consul”) at approximately KRW 200 million.

The plaintiff shall purchase the consul of this case in the KCAD, the Korean General Sales Co., Ltd. of "C" and the same year.

4.1. The Defendant was supplied, and at the time of delivery, a server (hereinafter “instant server”) was installed within the consular machine of this case.

The Defendant supplied the consul of this case (including the server of this case) to the Ulsan-gun.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and the gist of the plaintiff's assertion in the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant purchased only the consul of this case, but did not purchase the server of this case. Thus, the defendant unfairly benefiting from the purchase price of the server of this case 18 million won.

According to the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 5, 15, and 18 (including a number number), it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant did not enter the server of this case in the quotation and note received on March 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff sold the past consul at the request of the orderer and sold the server additionally.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant gains unjust enrichment of the server of this case only with the above recognized facts and the descriptions of evidence Nos. 6, 8, and 9 prepared by the Plaintiff. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

On March 28, 2019, the Plaintiff’s “instant server” is not included in the instant consul.