All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that the Defendant is liable to return only KRW 9,894,174,882, which deducted the expenses that were paid from the operating expenses of this case from the expenses of this case, on the ground that the instant operating expenses, which are advance payments for re-Packing, were not limited to the method of re

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of disposal documents and the scope of return of advance payment upon

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that, under the instant concession agreement, the instant operating expenses are of the nature of advance payment for re-Packing, the instant operating expenses that can be properly used for exclusive use or integrated use between items cannot be deemed advance payment for re-Packing, and thus, if the instant contract is settled upon termination of the instant contract, the Defendant’s settlement should be based on the entire remuneration for the affairs actually handled by the Defendant, not limited to the operating expenses of the instant case, but on the basis of the entire remuneration

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on advance payment, the right to claim reimbursement of expenses, the right to claim reimbursement, and the settlement of accounts following

B. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the amount that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff regarding the specific items of consignment operation expenses under the instant consignment contract.