대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.
2...
1. The following facts are found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3:
A. The Plaintiff is a rearrangement project management contractor under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); and the Defendant is a cooperative established pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act for the purpose of housing redevelopment project of IBS-si.
B. On September 3, 2012, the Defendant obtained authorization to establish an association from the luminous market, and comprehensively succeeded to the Defendant’s rights and obligations of the Association Establishment Promotion Committee for B Housing Redevelopment Project (hereinafter “Promotion Committee”) by completing the registration of establishment on September 25, 2012.
C. Meanwhile, around November 17, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for specialized management of rearrangement projects (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Promotion Committee, and the said service contract was terminated due to the Defendant’s decision on termination on April 1, 2015, which comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the Promotion Committee, and notification of the intention to terminate the service contract around that time.
On November 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the service price under the instant service contract as Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2016Gahap9145, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant service contract was null and void in violation of the procedure stipulated in the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, etc. around December 21, 2017.
The Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2004121, and the appellate court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 720 million to the Plaintiff” around April 27, 2018, and the said decision became final and conclusive as it did not raise any objection.
2. Determination as to the claim related to repayment to E Co., Ltd.
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not more than E, a promotion committee around February 8, 2010.