1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this Court's explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited as it includes summary words under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff

Summary of argument

A. The instant service contract is a contract concluded between D, the representative director of the Plaintiff, in collusion with D, and the Defendant’s representative director, in order to pay the Plaintiff’s funds to D at the time of concluding the instant service contract, which is a false contract with the Defendant, who has no substantial substance.

Therefore, since the service contract of this case is invalid as a false declaration of agreement, the defendant should return 250,000,000 won and damages for delay which he received as down payment to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

Even if the Defendant asserted damages or unjust enrichment due to termination of the instant service contract, the Defendant, either intentionally or by gross negligence, suspended its work without passing through a construction deliberation for the instant project, and did not directly perform the service duties in accordance with the purpose of the instant service contract, including a construction design service contract, a traffic impact assessment service contract, and a district unit modification service contract. Although the Defendant was obligated to report the Plaintiff’s work pursuant to the instant service contract, he did not file a report on the Plaintiff’s work before the rejection of the construction deliberation for the instant project.

Since the Plaintiff terminated the above contract in accordance with Article 7 of the service contract of this case, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 200,000,000 after deducting the remuneration that the Defendant is entitled to receive from the Defendant pursuant to Article 8 of the service contract of this case as unjust enrichment or damages for delay.

The service contract of this case is the service contract of this case without any cause attributable to the plaintiff and the defendant claiming return of unjust enrichment by risk burden.