1. The plaintiff, among the judgment of the first instance on the conjunctive claim, falls under the following part ordering payment:

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts: (b) the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the assertion of return of unjust enrichment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil

2. Parts to be dried;

C. The promotion committee shall report the business performed by the promotion committee to the general meeting of partnership, and the rights and duties related to the business performed by the promotion committee shall be comprehensively taken over by the partnership.

(Article 15 (4) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. We examine whether B, the chairperson of the promotion committee of this case, received the above 60,000,000 won from the plaintiff, and whether the promotion committee of this case can be deemed to have obtained profit from the plaintiff.

In a case where a person gains a profit from another person’s property or labor without any legal cause, and thereby causes loss to another person, such gain is presumed to exist, regardless of whether the person who acquired the profit would have consumed the gain (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da32881, Dec. 10, 1996). The Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to B’s bank account, which is recognized by the testimony of the witness C and the witness at the trial. This was the account used as the bank account of the Promotion Committee, and the amount of KRW 60 million was transferred from B to C’s bank account in the name of the Promotion Committee. The said KRW 60 million was transferred from the court and the trial of the first instance, and the said KRW 60 million was transferred to C in relation to the resident general meeting that was promoted by the Promotion Committee at this court and the trial of the first instance, and there is no contrary evidence.

If there are some circumstances, the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the monetary loan contract with B, the representative of the Promotion Committee of this case, is null and void as seen above.