1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Appeal costs and ancillary costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the assertion that the plaintiff added in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff should return KRW 127,038,653 as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff provided the service to the Defendant pursuant to the invalid agreement, if the validity of the instant agreement is not recognized on the grounds that the Plaintiff provided the service to the Defendant, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in this court was based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court.

On January 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with the Defendant and provided services to the Defendant pursuant to the above service contract. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired profits equivalent to the above service cost claimed by the Plaintiff without any legal ground. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the main and conjunctive claim, is just as it is concluded, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the supplementary claim is dismissed in the trial. It is so decided as per Disposition.