1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation of this case is based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in this court and rejected the fact-finding of appraiser D of the first instance court which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion. The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for supplement of the following determination in relation to the assertion emphasized by the plaintiff in this court. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Supplementary judgment

A. In order to establish office management, first of all, it is not clear that the office is another person’s office and there is an intention to vest in another person the actual benefit of management, i.e., the actual benefit of management, and furthermore, the process of the office is disadvantageous to the principal or against his will.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da26326, Oct. 10, 1997). Even if the Plaintiff had made a part of the sixth-minute construction prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it appears that the Plaintiff, the contractor, for the Plaintiff’s interest in the construction of the primary contractor, i.e., convenience of the performance of the contract or preparation for performance, and the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff constitutes another person

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had performed the construction work with the intention to handle the affairs on behalf of the Defendant without any duty, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's argument of office management is without merit.

B. In addition, the Defendant asserted that the part of the 6th portion of the construction work did not undergo consultation with the Defendant even if the Plaintiff was a part of the 6th portion of the construction work, and that it is merely a voluntary construction rather than in accordance with the design drawing, and that there was no design drawing for the 6th portion of the construction work actually asserted by the Plaintiff. In light of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, the Defendant made any unjust enrichment regarding the part of the construction work.