1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claim in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The reasoning of this Court’s explanation is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly received the instant construction from E, and the Plaintiff delivered the construction cost of KRW 70 million to the Defendant.

However, the defendant spreads false facts to E in violation of the obligations under the partnership agreement, and prevents the plaintiff from receiving intermediate payments from E, thereby cancelling the partnership agreement with the defendant.

On the other hand, even if the Defendant is insufficient to introduce the instant construction, the Defendant committed a tort interfering with the Plaintiff’s progress by spreading false facts to E, the owner of the instant construction, obstructing the progress of construction, and preventing the construction cost.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 70 million won and damages for delay due to restitution following the cancellation of a contract for the same business or illegal acts.

B. KRW 70 million received from the Plaintiff was paid as a referral fee for the instant construction project.

The Defendant did not conclude the same business contract with the Plaintiff, and only performed the so-called “PM” role that, with respect to the instant construction project, E did not have knowledge of construction works, helps the project owner control over construction business operators and supervise the progress of construction works.

In addition, the plaintiff confirmed the fact that the construction of this case was entrusted to H as a whole, and only known it to the owner.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence revealed earlier, prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, it is recognized that the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendant on the estimate of the instant construction project, the terms and conditions of the construction project, and the terms and conditions of the said contract prior to the conclusion of the contract.

However, the evidence mentioned above and evidence set forth in Gap 33 to 39 are different.