1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is 1.B.

After the fourth chapter of the Civil Procedure Act, “A stock company H is the trade name before the change of the defendant.” The plaintiff added “A” to the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court, and this is the same as the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “the next 2. Additional Judgment”, and this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the argument 1) The plaintiff asserts that even though the plaintiff paid the amount of the original return to the defendant to the defendant, the contract for the original return was cancelled because the defendant did not deliver the original return to the plaintiff, and thus the defendant must return the said amount of the original return to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment (or unjust enrichment). 2) The defendant asserts that the fact of finding the above original return should be returned to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment (including evidence Nos. 2, 6, 7, and Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 19, 24 through 27, 30 (including evidence number), and the whole purport of the arguments in the testimony of the witness J and K of the first instance trial, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of each

A) The Plaintiff, which was in need of transaction performance with the Defendant, a large electronic commerce business entity, sought an explanation from C on “if the Plaintiff purchases low-income from the Defendant without actual delivery, the Plaintiff would have purchased the low-income from the Defendant, and C would have returned to the Plaintiff 1% of the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff by re-purchaseing the said low-income from the Plaintiff.” The Defendant also agreed to purchase the low-income from the designated business entity, such as D, E,F, and G, as the Plaintiff’s employee, and the Defendant also agreed to sell the low-income under the Defendant’s responsibility. However, this does not intend to sell the low-income under the Defendant’s responsibility while actually managing the low-income purchased by the Defendant.

In other words, the original C-designated companies can sell the B-site by using it.