In the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant (Counterclaim) regarding the main lawsuit shall be revoked, and the revocation part shall be applicable.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding paragraph 4.) except for the following reasons. Thus, this case shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parts to be dried shall have been dried up to 6 pages 6 to 8 pages 1 of the judgment of the first instance.

A person shall be appointed.

B. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who benefits from another person’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes damage to another person shall return such benefit.”

The burden of proving that there is no legal ground in the case of the so-called unjust enrichment that one party claims the return of the benefits after having paid a certain amount of benefits according to his/her own will on the grounds that there is no legal ground.

In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, claim and prove that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc.

(2) In order for the Plaintiff to receive a refund of KRW 50,000,000, which is a part of the above KRW 80,000,00,000, from one’s own intent under the instant service contract, to receive a refund of the said KRW 50,000,000, in accordance with his/her own intent under the instant service contract, the Plaintiff must prove that the cause for the payment has ceased to exist due to the lapse, cancellation, etc. of the grounds for the payment, in order to obtain a refund of the said KRW 80,00,00,000, as unjust enrichment.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument as a result of the fact-finding reply to each chairperson of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Election Commission, Gwangju Metropolitan City Election Commission, Jeonnam-do Election Commission, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Election Commission, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and Eul evidence No. 3, the public relations banner that the defendant agreed to attach in the service contract of this case shall