1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of the agreed amount, advertising request amount, and unjust enrichment against the Defendant, and the court of first instance dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim.

In this regard, the plaintiff appealed against the part of the claim for unjust enrichment, which is subject to the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for unjust enrichment.

2. Basic facts

A. On December 1, 2011, the Plaintiff, who operated an advertising agency business with C, concluded an advertising agency contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on behalf of the Plaintiff on the outside part of the bus owned by the high-sea transportation company (hereinafter “high-sea transportation company”) from December 1, 201 to November 30, 2013 (hereinafter “high-sea transportation”), and on the inside part of the bus owned by the high-sea transportation company (hereinafter “high-sea transportation company”).

B. Around October 2013, D demanded that the Plaintiff increase the deposit for the said advertising agency contract, the Plaintiff renounced the renewal of the said contract and introduced the Defendant to D as a new advertising agent.

C. On November 1, 2013 and December 1, 2013, through February 28, 2016, the Defendant entered into an advertising agency contract with the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant on advertisements of part and inside (e.g., sets) of buses owned by high-sea transportation (hereinafter “instant advertising agency contract”).

On November 1, 2013, the Defendant received the right of advertising agency for buses owned by high-sea transportation from the Plaintiff, and entered into a transfer contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”).

E. A person who knows that the high-sea transportation did not intend to renew the advertising media use contract with D any more, and D’s auditors expressed that the instant advertising agency contract cannot be valid due to the foregoing circumstances at the location where G, C’s actual operator, I, Defendant representative director J, and J’s husband K.

F. Accordingly, D and the Defendant rescinded the instant advertising agency contract on November 25, 2013, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant transfer contract around November 2013.