1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 2/3 are the Plaintiff, and the remainder are the Defendant, respectively.

1. After remanding the case, the judgment of the court of first instance cited the part of the damages equivalent to the rent due to the termination of the operation consignment agreement and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff and the defendant appealed against each losing part, and the court prior to the remand omitted the judgment on appeal against the plaintiff against the defendant, and accepted the defendant's appeal, and dismissed the judgment of the first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed against the damages equivalent to the rent due to the termination of the operation entrustment contract, which is a favorable part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court accepted the plaintiff's appeal and reversed the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the remand of the damages equivalent to the rent due to the termination of the operation entrustment contract, and remanded

Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the court of first instance, which is pending in the trial after remand due to the omission of trial, is the reversed part, that is, the compensation for damages equivalent to the rent due to the termination of the operation consignment agreement with the defendant, and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment (the part on appeal by the defendant). Ultimately, the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are all subject to the judgment after the remand.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is either dismissed or deleted as follows, and the judgment on the additional argument in the trial before the defendant's remand is added as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition to the following

【The part concerning the repair or deletion of Defendant B’s “Defendant C and D” shall be referred to as “Defendant C and D,” both to “Defendant C and D,” respectively.

10.2. The 10th paragraph shall be amended as follows:

2. The plaintiff's assertion is a security deposit of KRW 500 million pursuant to Article 14 of the Operation Entrustment Contract of this case.