The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal regarding the agreement to bring an action, the agreement to bring an action is permissible in cases where the parties to the lawsuit have generated serious legal effects, such as waiver of the right to claim a trial guaranteed under the Constitution, and is limited to a specific legal relationship within the scope of the right which the parties to the lawsuit may dispose of, and is valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da6398, Mar. 26, 1999). If there is any disagreement on the validity or scope thereof, the parties’ intention should be reasonably interpreted and determined.

(2) The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the value-added tax did not violate the Plaintiff’s non-performance agreement on November 28, 2013, separately from the agreement on the instant lawsuit, on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on determining whether the instant portion constitutes unjust enrichment.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the agreement to file a lawsuit, or in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on unjust enrichment equivalent to value-added tax, the lower court determined that, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have renounced the method of independent settlement through an agreement between the three parties and the two parties, and thus, the substantial business entity of the distribution of commercial buildings still is the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is the subject subject to the deduction of input tax due to the disbursement of the Plaintiff and the Defendant of the liability to pay value-added tax due to the sale of

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is reasonable and reasonable.