Among the part against the Plaintiff against Defendant B, the part of the lower judgment regarding value-added tax of KRW 73,215,500.

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C and D is examined.

The Plaintiff appealed on the part against the Plaintiff against Defendant C and D in the lower judgment, but did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and only stated the grounds of appeal as to the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) in the appellate brief, and did not state the grounds of appeal as to the claim for damages against Defendant C and D.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal on Defendant B. A.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court shall decide whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of social justice and the principle of equity by free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The facts duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the judgment below did not exceed

(Article 432) (2) The lower court determined to the following purport on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

(A) ① On November 30, 2005, the Plaintiff Promotion Committee held a general meeting of residents and resolved to select Defendant B as a specialized management businessman of rearrangement projects.

② On December 8, 2005, Defendant C and Defendant B entered into a service contract (hereinafter “instant primary contract”) with the content that they entrust Defendant B with the specialized management of rearrangement project following the promotion of the housing reconstruction project (excluding value-added tax) on the service cost of KRW 745,80,000,00.

③ At the initiative of Defendant B, the Plaintiff was authorized to establish the association on August 1, 2007; the authorization on October 26, 2007; and the authorization on the implementation of the housing reconstruction project; and the authorization on the management and disposal plan on January 23, 2008; and the Defendant B provided services as stipulated in the instant first contract.

④ Defendant C, the president of the Plaintiff’s partnership, is the service price under the first contract of this case to Defendant B.