1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. Even if the defendant cited the judgment of the court of first instance fully examines the evidence newly submitted in the trial, the reason why the court should explain this case is "from October 19, 2013 to" as "from November 14, 2013 to "from October 14, 2013" of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the witness C's testimony" in the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance to "the witness C's testimony" in the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance to "the witness of the court of first instance", and the following is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following matters after the fifth part of the judgment of the court of first instance to the subsequent part of the fifth

In addition, the defendant paid KRW 22 million to the plaintiff with the purchase price of the plaintiff's right to transport business (number plate value). The plaintiff again has the property value corresponding to the right to transport business in his/her own name as the termination of the entrustment management contract of this case, and thus he/she has a duty to return it with unjust enrichment.

In this regard, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the said money at the so-called number plate value.

However, in light of the statements in subparagraph 3 and witness evidence in the first instance trial C, the above money is not a cost for purchasing transportation business rights, but it is merely a kind of premium that has the nature of the premium that has been given and received between the land owner and the land owner whose status is changed through the instant entrustment management contract, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant paid the purchase price of transportation business rights as alleged above. Moreover, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff acquired benefits by holding the property value equivalent to the transportation business rights since the above contract had been terminated since it had been held before the above entrustment management contract in this case.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.