1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 10,975,980.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant made unjust enrichment by failing to deposit part of the amount received from the business partner as the plaintiff's business member. The plaintiff and the defendant concluded a quasi-loan agreement for consumption aimed at making the above unjust enrichment by treating the amount not paid as advance payment to the defendant as advance payment to the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff a loan equivalent to KRW 20,784,731 of the unpaid balance and damages for delay.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence 2-3 and 4, and witness B of the court of first instance, the plaintiff recorded and managed the current status of the amount that the defendant has not paid to the plaintiff out of the amount that the defendant received from the customer as the "provisional payment" (hereinafter referred to as the "this case's account book"), and the fact that the plaintiff deducted the amount of the non-paid amount from the amount paid to the defendant as advance payment can be acknowledged.

However, it is insufficient to find that the above facts and the above evidence alone are sufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to make the above non-paid amount a purpose of a loan for consumption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without examining

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant was unjust enrichment since he did not deposit part of the amount received from the business partner as the plaintiff's business partner to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff unjust enrichment and delay damages equivalent to KRW 20,784,731 of the amount not paid to the plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff.