1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment is identical to that of partial revision. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

o. Once No. 5 of the first instance judgment, No. 17, “No. 5,” and “Plaintiffs” are acknowledged to have testified that “The instant agreement mainly prescribes the Parties’ duty to cooperate with respect to the transfer business, such as a golf driving range, etc., according to C’s articles of incorporation, and provided that the resolution of board of directors, etc. shall be strictly followed, and that the Defendant Company shall deliver the resolution of board of directors, etc. to the Defendant Company, etc.,” there is no evidence suggesting that there was the consent of the parties to the instant agreement between the parties to the instant agreement. Fifth, even if the Plaintiff may become the principal of substantial calculation and profit in the behind the instant agreement, such circumstance alone does not directly become a party to the contract, and according to the evidence No. 15, in a criminal case against the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company’s director testified that “if the instant agreement was invalidated, it was paid to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, etc., the Plaintiff, etc., to the effect that the instant agreement would be paid to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s account.

o. On the 7th-5th judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff paid the 2,000,000 won in accordance with the instant agreement in that the Defendant Company paid the remuneration after the preparation and delivery of the above letter.