The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, if the court excludes the part to be used as described in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the 2nd page of the first instance judgment, the “146,366,929 won” in the 17th sentence shall be added to “146,276,929 won”.

B. On the 3rd page of the first instance judgment, the part of the “Plaintiff” in the 10th to 3rd page “(10,000,000,000 won received by the Defendant as part of the amount of profit, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages for delay of the said money, Defendant C is obligated to pay the damages for delay of the said money, and Defendant C is obligated to pay the damages for delay of the said money,” and the “amount of claim” in the 14th page of the 3rd page “the Defendant B shall be KRW 200,000,000, Defendant C shall be KRW 70,000,000, and damages for delay of the said money.”

C. On the 4th instance judgment, the first instance court's 6th to 4th 18th ended as follows.

“In addition, in a case where the unjust enrichment system does not have any legal cause, the said system imposes an obligation to return the unjust enrichment on the benefiting party based on the ideology of fairness and justice, and thus, if the benefiting party does not have any substantial benefit, the said obligation may not be imposed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332, Sept. 8, 201). The fact that the Defendants were registered as the relevant employee even if they are not the Plaintiff’s employee and received the benefits for a certain period from the Plaintiff

However, in light of the following circumstances, each of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 10 and the whole purport of the pleadings, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendants gained a substantial benefit equivalent to the above claim amount without any legal cause, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

1. D is against the plaintiff.