On April 7, 2010, the defendant entered into a service contract for housing redevelopment improvement projects in the zone C on April 7, 2010, and a service contract for housing redevelopment improvement projects in the zone D on September 1, 2010.

The Plaintiff transferred each of the KRW 51,70,000,000 to Defendant or E (Defendant’s inside director)’s account on September 2, 201, and KRW 20,000,000 on May 30, 2011, and KRW 20,000,00 on September 27, 2012, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant remittance”). The Defendant filed a claim against F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) for the amount of KRW 717,079,000, including the service contract, etc. (hereinafter “related case”) with the Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap64 (hereinafter “F”), and the conciliation was concluded on November 16, 2015 as indicated in the [Attachment].

(hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation”). [Ground of recognition] A] without dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings, asserted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff, upon receiving a request from the defendant to lend the service fees, lent KRW 91,70,000 in total to the defendant, upon receiving a request from the defendant to pay the service fees.

However, since the defendant received some service costs through the instant conciliation, he/she should pay the above loan to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and Defendant F, both of which are substantially operated by G, is a company that the instant remittance amount is only a part of the service cost to be paid by F, not a loan.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, if the service company of the rearrangement project performs its duties, i.e., in a case where the service company receives a loan from the contractor or the maintenance company, and in the case of the remittance of this case, the remittance was made to the defendant without specifying at all any time what service costs are related to the transfer of this case. In particular, the defendant did not mention at any time about the remittance amount of this case, asserting that he received a partial payment of KRW 50,00,000 out of the total service costs in the related case, and the defendant did not mention at any time about the transfer amount of this case.