1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of

Part 6. Parts 9 through 12 of Part 6. "At the end," shall be recorded as follows.

【In conclusion, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 495,00,000, and the Defendant earned profit equivalent to the same amount (the Defendant asserted that the instant association may not file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff had a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 495,00,000 as a result of the invalidation of the instant service contract, although the Plaintiff had a claim against G for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 495,000,00,000 as a result of the instant prior lawsuit, the Plaintiff had a duty to return the same amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had a duty to return the same amount to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff may file a claim against the instant association for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 495,00,000,000. As a result, the Plaintiff did not cause any loss to the Plaintiff.

However, according to the facts found earlier, the issue of return of unjust enrichment following the invalidity of the instant service contract is a matter to be resolved between the Defendant and G, which is the party to the instant service contract, and it is difficult to view that the instant association has a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 495,00,000 for G due to the invalidity of the instant service contract with respect to G.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff had a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the same amount against the union of this case on the premise of this claim is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant acquired the benefits equivalent to KRW 495,00,000 without any legal ground due to the return of the money deposited in this case by the plaintiff.