A. The plaintiffs and E are members of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government gathering "G" within the F Zones.

B. On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiffs and E entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the following terms (hereinafter “instant agreement”) that delegates the requisition for the withdrawal of the consent to dissolve an association from residents in the said redevelopment area, and paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on April 16, 2014.

1. Place: Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H-I-I-Japan;

2. Demand for the withdrawal of written consent for dissolution of the association;

3. 160 persons who withdraw the establishment of the association.

4. Period of withdrawal: From April 19, 2014 to May 31, 2014, 2014: Maximum million won for service charges (in case of inging inging 70,000,000), among the service charges, the amount to be received at the completion of 50% for the daily gold ( ing ing ing 10,000,000).

6. Payment of service costs: 50% of the service costs (e.g. 30,000,000) shall be deposited on April 16, 2014.

- The balance: 30,000,000 gran gran gran gin gin gin gin gin gin gin gin gin gin gin

7. 50% of the service costs shall be refunded in the event that no written consent to dissolution is obtained.

C. The Defendant: (a) invested ten persons from April 21, 2014 to May 4, 2014; (b) provided the service of collecting written withdrawal; (c) but (c) was ultimately unable to collect written withdrawal from May 31, 2014; and (d) did not perform the service properly.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 8, Eul evidence 6 through 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the defendant did not perform his duty to provide the above service by failing to entirely collect the written withdrawal within the period stipulated in the agreement of this case. The agreement of this case was legally rescinded as the copy of the complaint of this case, which expressed the plaintiffs' intent to cancel the agreement of this case on the ground of the defendant's nonperformance of duty, was served on the defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant’s payment of the said money from April 16, 2014.