1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the plaintiff's repeated arguments or new arguments by the court of first instance and adding the judgment of the court of first instance under Paragraph 2, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1. The Defendant’s act of lending a construction license prohibited under the Construction Business Act, and the act of lending a construction license itself constitutes an invalid legal act, and thus, the profits received in return should be returned as unjust enrichment.

Income that the Defendant received through the Defendant’s lending of construction licenses is KRW 70,471,520 (i.e., KRW 26,617,80,00 that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff 531,081,80 that the Defendant received from the original recipient - KRW 345,202,80 that was paid by the Plaintiff on the tax invoice - amount of KRW 142,024,480 that was paid by the Defendant on the tax invoice - This ought to be returned to the Plaintiff and C in unjust enrichment. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the claim and damages for delay.

In addition, 21,155,200 won of the construction cost paid by the Defendant to the Gold Construction shall be deducted from the construction cost paid by the Defendant as a false construction cost. As such, profit received by the Defendant through a construction license lending amounting to 34,384,647 won [26,617,647 won that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff - (345,202,80 won of the construction cost paid to the Plaintiff on the tax invoice - construction cost of 21,15,200 won that has been falsely stated in the tax invoice – 142,024,480 won of the industrial accident compensation and employment insurance premium - KRW 8,980,273 of the construction cost borne by the Plaintiff among them should be fully refunded to the Plaintiff.

② If the Defendant serves as the Executive Director, and if the Defendant actually performs construction work, the Plaintiff and the Defendant will eventually serve as the Executive Director.