The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's second and third conjunctive claims added by this Court are all dismissed.

The plaintiff's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is deemed justifiable except for the following points out.

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is identical to the remaining part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the addition of the judgment on the second and third conjunctive claims added by the plaintiff to this court as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in addition to the addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (3) below.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is dismissed or deleted, shall be deleted from each share of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 4, “Defendant D and E.”

In the first instance judgment, the part of the first instance judgment Nos. 21 to 5 shall be reversed as follows.

1) First, we examine whether a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant by an industry-academic cooperation foundation exists.

Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a benefit from another’s property or services without any legal cause and thereby causes loss to the other person shall return such benefit.”

In the case of the so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties has paid a certain amount of benefit according to his/her own will and then claims the return of the benefit on the grounds that there is no legal ground, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground

(see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). If a false third party’s repayment with a third party as stipulated in Article 469 of the Civil Act does not allow a third party’s repayment to the obligor’s creditor, it is deemed a valid repayment, and the obligee’s claim is legally extinguished as the repayment, and the obligee’s repayment is the same.