1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in this court, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is that "Evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance" is used as "Evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 10, and 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance," and this court's reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment, which is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, as stated in the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and additional judgment in this court

A. Even if the Plaintiff alleged the third service contract of this case did not exist, the Plaintiff paid expenses and hours for the Defendant’s performance of his/her duties from April 2017 to September 2017, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff or damages equivalent thereto.

B. In order for a judgment management to be established, it is not clear that the office work is another person’s business and there is an intention to vest in another person the actual benefit of management, i.e., the intention to vest in another person, as well as the process of the office work is disadvantageous to the principal or against

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da26326 delivered on October 10, 1997, etc.). We examine the facts as seen earlier, the evidence mentioned above, Eul evidence No. 6, and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the existence of a joint project implementation agreement between the defendant and D, but it appears that D exclusively performed the duties of settlement of cash and compensation for tenants, etc., and the defendant was 16,75,799.