1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the first place, as the Plaintiff completed the design business set forth in the instant design contract jointly with F, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the design service cost of KRW 638 million, in accordance with Article 4(1) of the instant design contract with the effect that the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff the design service cost of KRW 638 million. 2) In the second place, the Plaintiff actually performed the hotel design business related to the instant project, and thereby, the Defendant gains profits therefrom, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the design service cost of KRW 638 million to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not prepare the design contract of this case, and the E representative director and G, a real representative of the Defendant, can raise funds necessary for the business in the course of promoting the business of this case, and thus, H (the representative of the Plaintiff as the internal director of the Plaintiff) has divided profits.

(2) Upon receipt of the proposal, the Plaintiff agreed to assume the responsibility for raising the project cost and changing the building permit, etc., and there is no agreed to pay the design service cost to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if the Plaintiff performed the design service, the Defendant already paid not only the Plaintiff the cost of KRW 88 million but also carried out the instant project with the design cost supplied by Ear, and the design cost prepared by the Plaintiff was not fully used for the instant project. Accordingly, the Defendant is not obliged to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the design service cost to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. As to the main claim, the Plaintiff sought the payment of the design service cost under the design contract of this case (No. 4-1) and the Defendant is above.