1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be as follows: “(The plaintiff is an agreement to exempt all the contractual responsibilities of the defendant company that is the party to the contract for large-scale repair of this case, and thus null and void because the agreement is an agreement to exempt all the contractual responsibilities of the defendant company that is the party to the contract for large-scale repair of this case, it constitutes a juristic act in anti-social order. However, the defendant company cannot be deemed to be a party to the contract for the construction of this case, or the content of the agreement cannot be deemed to be a juristic act in anti-social order, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the agreement is a juristic act in anti-social order, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be recognized).” The reason of the judgment of the

) Since the part on the issue is identical to that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion against Defendant B was that the Plaintiff transferred the price of KRW 150 million to Defendant B’s account according to the instant contract for the installation of facilities and equipment.

Defendant B used or individually used part of the above money jointly with C, and the head of the site office and the head of the business division, etc. working for the Plaintiff, by visiting the meals as a house and deceiving the Corporation as if they were normally carried out, and the Plaintiff is the spouse of the Plaintiff and presented a certified copy of the resident registration.

Therefore, Defendant B, as a party to a contract for the installation of facilities and equipment of this case, is liable to return unjust enrichment of KRW 130 million which was not used for the purchase of medical equipment among the above payments, or aids and abets C’s tort by deceiving the Plaintiff or managing the said payments in collaboration with C, and thus, the above money is liable for damages equivalent to the above amount.

Judgment

On June 18, 2015, at the request of C around June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff totaled the account of Defendant B, his wife, 15.