1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 19, 2018, a single construction company (hereinafter “same construction”) was a company that runs a housing construction business and took over “A manager of the same rehabilitation debtor company” upon receiving a decision to discontinue rehabilitation procedures.

B. On December 15, 2015, the same construction entered into a real estate consulting agreement with the Defendant on the feasibility review, etc. of the project for the development of collective housing in Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant development project”), and agreed as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant consulting contract”). (c)

The contractor of the development project of this case was a corporation, but the contractor was changed to the same construction. As the contractor changed to the same construction, the same construction and the defendant entered into the consulting contract of this case, and the same construction paid 100 million won to the defendant.

On December 28, 2015, the Defendant drafted a draft draft of the project deliberation committee following the change into the same construction. The Defendant passed the internal chief Justice on January 6, 2016, but the Plaintiff did not conclude a development trust agreement with the Defendant by January 10, 2016.

E. On February 2, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “In accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of the instant consulting agreement, KRW 100 million was reverted to the Defendant as of January 31, 2016.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 5, Eul 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) pursuant to the consulting contract of this case, the defendant shall conduct the business feasibility analysis, the establishment of the land trust business district, and the affairs of the division of the internal chief Justice. While the defendant did not perform any other affairs than the internal chief Justice's opinion, he confiscated the consulting fee of KRW 100 million paid by the plaintiff, which constitutes unjust enrichment, and the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the above KRW 100 million.