2. B

A. The plaintiff B's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

B. The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff A 619,506,924 won with 5% interest per annum from January 18, 2018 to August 23, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

C. The plaintiff A's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total costs of litigation, 1/10 of the part arising between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant shall be borne by the said Plaintiff; the remainder by the Defendant; and the part arising between the Plaintiff B and the Defendant shall be borne by the Plaintiff, respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1-2 (b) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 680,00,000 won, 210,298,723 won, and 15% interest per annum from January 18, 2018 to the date of complete payment (the plaintiff A claimed KRW 541,58,472 won from the first instance court to the date of complete payment). The purport of the claim is to expand the purport of the claim, and the plaintiff B claimed KRW 348,712,68 won from the first instance court to claim KRW 210,298,723 from the date of full payment, and the claim was changed in exchange for the lawsuit).

【Purpose of Appeal】

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 541,58,472 as well as 5% interest per annum from October 18, 2012 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff B 348,712,688 won with 5% interest per annum from October 17, 2012 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. Lending and concluding service contracts between E and the Defendant’s telegraphic body for C Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Promotion Committee

1) In order to implement a housing redevelopment improvement project in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City H Group, the Defendant is a partnership that completed the authorization of establishment on May 13, 2013 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party E Co., Ltd.") is a company that operates a specialized maintenance business under the above Act.

2) On February 14, 2007, on the part of the defendant, the C-Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Committee") which was approved by the head of Incheon Nam-gu on February 14, 2007, concluded a lease contract with the non-party company to lend operating expenses incurred by the non-party company to the Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "lease contract of this case"). The main contents are as follows.

On behalf of the Rental Contract Promotion Committee, the Chairperson F(A) and the representative director G(B) of the non-party company enter into a contract for the lending of operating expenses (loan) as follows in order to determine necessary matters concerning the operating expenses required for the promotion of the C Housing Redevelopment Project.Article 2(Status of Parties)(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents shall entrust Eul with the management business of the rearrangement projects under the subparagraphs of Article 69 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and Eul shall faithfully perform the services entrusted by Gap.Article 3(Scope of Business)(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

Article 6 (Cancellation and Termination of Contract) (1) In the event that the occurrence of any of the following causes is proved to be impossible to perform the contract, A may cancel or terminate all or part of this contract if it is not performed within the said period after giving written notice within the said period after the performance period of the contract was set by 15 days. 1. If B determines that it is impossible for B to perform the business under Article 3 due to its violation of the general terms and conditions of the contract, B may not achieve the purpose of the contract; 2. If B is objectively determined that it is impossible to fulfill the purpose of the contract due to its breach of the general terms and conditions of the contract, if the contract is rescinded or terminated, A shall pay for the loan already performed, and the payment schedule shall be treated through mutual consultation:

3) On April 7, 2007, the promotion committee entered into a housing redevelopment project service contract (hereinafter “the instant first service contract”) with the non-party company on the condition that the non-party company will act as an agent for the affairs related to the housing redevelopment project (hereinafter “the contents of the contract”) (not significantly different from the instant second service contract concluded on June 26, 2010.)

4) On December 1, 2008, the Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City formulated a rearrangement plan for implementing a housing redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and designated and publicly announced the rearrangement zone. The total floor area of construction publicly notified at the time is 144,385.09m2.

5) Meanwhile, some of the landowners in the rearrangement zone raised an objection regarding the selection of the non-party company as the service company by the promotion committee, and the non-party company and the promotion committee agreed on January 22, 2010 as follows.

The first service contract of this case is automatically terminated, and the non-party company will not raise any objection against the re-election.

The promotion committee shall settle the operating expenses of the promotion committee borrowed from the non-party company during that period and the service expenses performed by the non-party company through mutual consultation.

- The non-party company may participate in tendering for the selection of the company.

6) On June 26, 2010, the promotion committee selected non-party companies as the rearrangement project management company, and the non-party company and the promotion committee concluded the second service contract for the redevelopment project of housing (hereinafter referred to as the "the second service contract of this case"). In addition to the first service contract of this case, "the case in which the title is collectively referred to as the "each service contract of this case"), and its main contents are as follows.

The name of the second service contract company: The aggregate of the area of the site area of 50,017 square meters (15,130,07 square meters): The contract amount of 9,380 won per square meter of the total floor area (31,000 won per square meter): the contract amount of 9,380 won (per square meter): The contract amount of 9,380 won per square meter of the total floor area (per square meter of 31,000 won per square meter of the total floor area of the contract) multiplied by the amount of 9,380 won per square meter of the contract unit area (per square meter of 31,000 won), and Articles 2 (1) (hereinafter referred to as "A") and 2 (1) (hereinafter referred to as "B") shall apply to the committee of promoters for the execution of the project on behalf of the other company (hereinafter referred to as "party) shall be entrusted with the affairs of the project execution plan and the affairs of the project execution agency (hereinafter referred to as "A") shall be entrusted with the affairs of the project execution plan.

Article 4(1) The cost for the rearrangement project management project for housing redevelopment shall be calculated by multiplying the total floor area to be newly built by the amount of KRW 9,380 per m of contract unit price by (31,00 per square meter) and by adjustment shall be made on the basis of the total floor area determined at the time of approval for the later project (revision) by the competent authorities.Article 5(1) A shall deposit the service cost into the account of Section B in cash as follows: 20%: 20% at the time of designation of a district: 10%: 20% at the time of authorization for the establishment of the project: 20% at the time of authorization for the implementation of the project: 10%; 20% at the time of dissolution and liquidation of partnership; 30% at the time of dissolution of partnership: 10%; 2.0% at the time of cancellation of the contract between the promoters and the 30 days after the designation of the contractor; 30 days after the cancellation of the contract; 4.

Article 10 (Payment of Service Costs at Time of Suspension of Services) (1) Where all or part of the service affairs have been interrupted due to a cause attributable to A, A shall pay the service costs up to the time of suspension for the service affairs already performed by B. (2) The service costs for the service affairs performed by the time of suspension shall be calculated through consultation with A under Article 5.

B. Notice of termination of contract to the non-party company by the promotion committee

1) From April 2007, the non-party company paid the operating expenses to the promotion committee each month in accordance with the instant loan contract and each service contract. From June 2008, the non-party company began to pay the operating expenses in arrears. The promotion committee urged the non-party company to perform the obligation to lend operating expenses on March 7, 201 and July 18, 201.

2) From September 28, 201, the non-party company paid a total of KRW 348,712,688 in terms of operating expenses, general meeting expenses, lease deposit, etc. until September 28, 201, the non-party company suspended the payment of operating expenses (the general meeting expenses and lease deposit was paid once, but the operating expenses of KRW 7,140,00 in each month are required to be paid, and the committee notified the non-party company of the termination of the instant service contract on October 15, 2012, which was not paid until September 28, 2011.

(c) Acceptance and transfer of the promotion committee and the defendant's operational affairs;

On June 29, 2013, after completing the authorization for the establishment of a partnership, the Defendant drafted a letter of acceptance and transfer after receiving all the operation duties of the committee related to housing redevelopment project from the committee of promoters. On May 26, 2013, the details of obligations of the committee of promoters as of May 26, 2013, are as follows.

1. Details of loans;

A person shall be appointed.

2. Details of accounts payable;

(3) Unpaid service costs

A person shall be appointed.

D. Attachment and collection order of the loan and service expense claims against the defendant of the non-party company

1) On October 20, 2011, J received the above claim amount among the loan contract of this case and the loan and service charges against the non-party company's third debtor's promotion committee under each service contract of this case against the non-party company's third debtor's promotion committee as a claim amount of KRW 1,360,000,000 from the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes No. 394, 201, the said seizure and collection order was served to the promotion committee on October 24, 2011.

2) On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff A received a claim amounting to KRW 680,000,000 from a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 680, 2010, which was drafted in the Yellow Sea, from a notary public, for the above claim amount among the loans and service charges under the instant lending contract and each service contract against Nonparty A’s third debtor promotion committee as the Incheon District Court Decision 2012TT 1163, May 11, 2012. The above seizure and collection order was served on the promotion committee on May 16, 2012.

3) On December 10, 2012, Nonparty Company transferred KRW 890,298,723 to Plaintiff B and I each of 50% of the loans and service costs claims under the instant loan agreement and each service agreement, and notified the Promotion Committee of the assignment of claims on December 12, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Each description of Gap evidence 1 through 10, Gap evidence 29, 45, 52, Eul evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 7, 10, 12, 13, 20 (including branch numbers for those with numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' claims

A. Plaintiff A’s claim

The non-party company has a monetary claim of KRW 348,712,688 against the Defendant in accordance with the instant loan agreement and each service agreement, and of KRW 541,58,472 in total, KRW 890,301,160 in total, and KRW 680,000 in total, out of KRW 890,301,160 in accordance with each of the instant loan agreement and each service agreement. Since the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order for KRW 680,000 in total, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff as the collection right-holder and interest for delay.

B. Plaintiff B’s claim

The Plaintiff B received monetary claims against the Defendant of the non-party company 890,301,160 won from the non-party company, and the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff B the remainder of KRW 210,301,160, excluding KRW 680,00,000, which the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff A a seizure and collection order, to the extent of KRW 210,30,301,160, which the Plaintiff sought from the Defendant.

3. As to the plaintiff A's claim

A. Determination on the claim for service costs under the second service contract of this case

1) Termination of the second service contract of this case

According to the above facts, each of the instant services contracts is a contract under which the non-party company entrusted the promotion committee with all necessary affairs for the C Housing Redevelopment Project and received remuneration therefor. Under the premise that the above services contract is maintained, the loan contract of this case is a contract under which the non-party company intends to lend operating expenses for the promotion committee or the defendant to the promotion committee. The non-party company's obligation to lend operating expenses is a major obligation that the non-party company is separately assigned to the service business to be performed in accordance with

However, the non-party company paid monthly operating expenses to the promotion committee from April 2007, but failed to pay from June 2008, which was urged by the promotion committee to pay the borrowed amount. Ultimately, the non-party company paid a total of KRW 348,712,688 under the name of operating expenses, general meeting expenses, lease deposit, etc. until September 28, 201, and then suspended operating expenses thereafter, and the promotion committee notified the non-party company that the service contract was terminated due to non-party company's non-performance of the obligation to lend operating expenses through content-certified mail on October 15, 2012. At that time, the above content-certified mail was served to the non-party company.

According to the above facts, the second service contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the defendant's declaration of termination on October 15, 2012 due to the reasons attributable to the non-party company.

In this regard, the plaintiff argues that the termination of the second service contract of this case is based on the reasons attributable to the defendant, since the non-party company suspended the payment of operating expenses due to the internal division of the promotion committee, the termination of the second service contract of this case is based on the reasons attributable to the defendant. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, even according to the statement of the above confirmation document, the non-party company's failure to pay operating expenses is due to the non-party company's financing difficulties caused by real estate economic invasion. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

2) Occurrence of a duty to pay service costs

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 104 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that " Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the provisions concerning delegation in the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to each service contract of this case, except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Act, with respect to the relationship between a management entity specialized in improvement projects and a person who has entrusted or requested a management entity specialized in improvement projects. In principle, in the case of a delegation contract, if a person is paid remuneration, he/she may not claim it unless he/she completes the delegation work (former part of Article 686 (2) of the Civil Act), but if he/she has determined remuneration during the period, he/she may claim it after the lapse of the period (latter part of Article 686 (2) of the Civil Act). In addition, in cases where the delegation has been terminated due to

Meanwhile, where a construction supervision contract falling under a delegation contract under the Civil Act terminates while underway, the scope of remuneration for the relevant affairs shall be determined by focusing on the performance of supervisory duties. In determining that remuneration, where remuneration is determined by the period under the proviso of Article 686 (2) and Article 686 (3) of the Civil Act, a claim for the agreed payment corresponding to the part during which the period has arrived at the time the supervisory duties actually performed. Even in cases where a contract for temporary payment of remuneration was entered into or a contract for the fixed period of remuneration is determined, a claim for remuneration according to the ratio of affairs already performed only when the supervisory duties are completed without any cause attributable to the supervisor. In such cases, where a special agreement is applicable to the determination of the ratio of handling of supervisory affairs, it shall be in accordance with the relevant statutory regulations, the ratio of actual supervisory duties to the number and administration period by class of supervisors who are administered by the actual supervisory duties, the standards for calculating supervisory expenses, practices in the industry, and the degree of progress of construction works subject to supervision, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da94202.

Article 686(3) of the Civil Act shall apply only to remuneration for a part of the period which has not yet arrived at the time the contract is terminated in the middle of the contract, and the above provision shall not apply to remuneration for the part of the period which has already arrived at the time the contract is terminated. Therefore, in cases where the period remuneration is determined in the above contract, even if the delegated contract is terminated in the middle of the cause attributable to the mandatary, the mandatary may claim remuneration for the part of the due period until the time the entrusted duty is actually performed.

B) Determination on the cause of the claim

At the time of each service contract of this case, the service price shall be an amount calculated by multiplying the total floor area determined by the designation of the rearrangement zone by the unit price of 31,000 won per square meter (the unit price of 9,380 won per square meter). The second service contract of this case provides that the service period shall be divided into 20% at the time of conclusion of the contract, 20% at the time of establishment authorization, 10% at the time of association establishment authorization, 20% at the time of association establishment authorization, 20% at the time of association dissolution and liquidation, 10% at the time of association dissolution and liquidation (the first service contract of this case, 20% at the time of conclusion of the contract of this case, 20% at the time of association establishment authorization, 20% at the time of association establishment authorization, 15% at the time of association establishment authorization, and 5% at the time of association dissolution and liquidation, 30% at the time of termination of the service contract of this case.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that each service contract of this case constitutes "the time when the remuneration is determined for the period" under the proviso of Article 686 (2) of the Civil Act, and that even if the remuneration is determined for the period, the non-party company may claim the agreed remuneration corresponding to the part for which the period has arrived until the time when the delegation service was actually performed (Therefore, even if each service contract of this case does not correspond to "the time when each service contract of this case is determined for the period", or even if it falls under "the time when the contract is determined for the period", the defendant's assertion that the above contract of this case does not have the duty to pay the service cost as long as the contract is terminated due to a cause attributable to the non-party company. Meanwhile, Article 10 (1) and (2) of the second service contract of this case is related to the payment of service cost at the time of suspension of service business, it is difficult to interpret the above provision to the effect that the service cost should not be paid if the service contract is terminated without any cause or both causes attributable to the non-party company.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 541,58,472 (the total amount of KRW 40 per 43,676.487, X payment ratio of KRW 31,000 which was to be paid at the time of conclusion of a contract, which is the part of the due date for which the contract is due, and KRW 20% which was to be paid at the time of designation of the district) as the amount equivalent to 40% of the total service cost, which is the due date for which the second service contract of this case is terminated.

C) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion that the service was not performed

The defendant asserts that the second service contract of this case is terminated in the middle, in order to claim service fees, the content of the service work performed by the non-party company should be proved in detail. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, it cannot claim the above service fees.

In full view of the relevant provisions of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the housing redevelopment improvement project under the above Act is implemented in the order of the formulation of the competent authority's basic plan for rearrangement, the determination of the rearrangement plan for the rearrangement zone, the designation of the rearrangement zone, the organization and approval of the promotion committee for the establishment of the land owners' partnership in the rearrangement zone, the authorization of the association establishment, the selection of designer and work executor, the approval of the project implementation plan, the public announcement of sale in lots and the application for parcelling-out, the public announcement of transfer and the payment of liquidation money, the formulation and approval of the partnership dissolution and liquidation management and disposal plan, relocation and removal, the commencement of construction, the general sale in lots, the completion inspection and the authorization of the completion, etc.

In this case, comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, and 57 (including the number number), and some testimonys and arguments of the witness F of the party examination, the non-party company performed the duty of convening meetings of the promotion committee at the stage of the organization of the promotion committee, which is established before the defendant is duly established, such as preparing for meeting materials and holding the residents' general meeting, identifying the landowner in the improvement zone, preparing for identifying accounting documents and settlement statement, and providing various advices necessary for the maintenance project. During that process, the non-party company provided the promotion committee with operating expenses necessary for the promotion of the above rearrangement project, and further, recognized the fact that the promotion committee's office had its employees

In addition to the above facts of recognition, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence, ① the duty to be performed by the delegated person in light of the contents of the business in each stage of housing redevelopment improvement project is complicated and diverse, and it is not easy to objectively evaluate the degree of the duty to be performed for a long time. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to understand that the contract to pay the service price in order according to the progress of the rearrangement project, such as the time of concluding the contract, designating the district, and approving the establishment of the association, would be evaluated as the performance of services according to the above progress, unless there are special circumstances, such as that there is no duty performed by the authorized person. ② The non-party company's duty is acting on behalf of the defendant or the promotion committee, and it is difficult to view that the non-party company did not perform its duty entirely in the name of the non-party company, ③ the time of concluding the first service contract in this case on April 7, 2007, and the second service contract should be paid at 20% after the signing of the contract and the second service contract within the designated period.

D) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion that the due date has not arrived

The Defendant asserts to the effect that Article 5(2) of the second service contract of this case provides that “the service cost shall be paid within 30 days from the date the contractor was selected.” However, the Defendant did not have been selected until October 15, 2012 as the time the housing redevelopment project was terminated, and that the due date for the payment of the service cost claims did not arrive.

In principle, the term "within 30 days after the commencement of the construction work" is determined as "within 30 days after the commencement of the second service contract of this case". However, it is reasonable to view that, in light of the practice of the construction work, after the selection of the construction work, the period during which the defendant is liable to pay the unpaid service costs has been postponed by setting a fixed period under the premise of the maintenance of the service contract, and considering the practice of the maintenance project that provides funds from the construction work after the commencement of the construction work, it is reasonable to deem that the period during which the defendant is liable to pay the unpaid service costs has been postponed. Meanwhile, in the case where the parties determined as the period during which the absence of the contract was made, as well as the case where the occurrence of the fact was impossible as seen earlier, the appointment of the construction work could no longer be made upon the termination of the second service contract of this case, and accordingly, the obligation to pay the above service costs has become due at the time of the termination of the contract of this case, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3) Whether to reduce service charges

The defendant asserts that the service cost stipulated in the second service contract of this case should be reduced because it is excessive compared to the service cost actually performed by the non-party company.

In principle, in cases where an agreement on the amount of remuneration is agreed upon under a delegation contract, a mandatory may claim in principle the amount of full agreed remuneration. However, in light of the developments leading up to the delegation, the process and difficulty of performing the delegated duties, the degree of effort made by the mandator, specific benefits that the delegating person gains in the course of performing his/her duties, and other circumstances revealed in oral arguments, a mandatory may claim only the amount of remuneration within the reasonable scope exceptionally deemed reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107900, Apr. 12, 2012).

In light of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by each of the above evidence in this case, 541,58,472 won of the agreed remuneration calculated under the second service contract of this case is unfairly excessive and thus, it is reasonable to reduce the agreed remuneration amount to KRW 270,794,236, which is 50% of the agreed remuneration amount.

① In light of the relevant provisions of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, a considerable portion of the duties in each phase of a housing redevelopment rearrangement project is concentrated in the process of establishing a rearrangement zone after the designation of the rearrangement zone, i.e., the establishment of an association, project implementation authorization, and approval for the management and disposal plan, and the designation of an improvement zone and the duties of the promotion committee therefor do not seem to have a high level of difficulty compared to the duties to be performed after the establishment of the association. Moreover, there is no specific benefit that the Defendant, who is the above officer, obtained due to the work performed to the designation phase of the rearrangement zone. Moreover, there is no data to estimate specific efforts or expenses incurred by the non-party company in relation to the work performed by the non-party company to the designation phase of the rearrangement zone. According to the second service agreement of this case, the amount equivalent to 40% of the total service cost that the Defendant paid

② As seen earlier, the termination of the second service contract of this case was erroneous due to the internal portion of the promotion committee, but the non-party company failed to perform its duty of lending operating expenses to the promotion committee and the defendant. Furthermore, the non-party company delayed a considerable portion of the progress of housing redevelopment improvement project due to the non-performance of the duty of demanding the consent necessary for approving the establishment of the promotion committee.

B. Determination as to loan claims under the instant loan agreement

The fact that the loan of the non-party company to the promotion committee under the loan contract of this case reaches KRW 348,712,688 does not dispute between the parties, and where the above loan contract was terminated or terminated, the loan already paid is repaid to the non-party company and agreed to handle the payment schedule through mutual consultation (Article 6(4) of the loan contract), the amount borrowed by the promotion committee is deposited into the account of the non-party company within 30 days after the selection of the contractor (Article 5(4) of the second service contract) and the promotion committee agreed to extend the lending period until the selection of the contractor at the request of the promotion committee (Article 7(4) of the second service contract). The fact that the non-party company did not pay the operating expenses on October 15, 2012 following the conclusion of each service contract of this case and the fact that the defendant succeeded to the rights and duties of the promotion committee is all as seen earlier.

According to each of the above facts, the agreement to pay within 30 days after the selection of the contractor in relation to the period of repayment is an agreement under the premise that the above lending contract remains effective, and the agreement to pay "mutual consultation" can be understood as the period of repayment when the above lending contract is terminated in the middle. Therefore, since not only the second service contract in this case on October 15, 2012 but also the loan contract in this case was lawfully terminated, it is reasonable to deem that the period of repayment of the above loan was due until the above termination. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff A, who is the person holding the right to collect the above loan claim, the amount of repayment of the loan in this case.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan contract was a separate contract from the instant secondary service contract, and the Defendant only terminated the said loan contract, but did not terminate the said loan contract. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the said loan contract was also terminated as long as the said loan contract was a subordinate contract premised on the maintenance of the said service contract, and the said contract was terminated, as long as the said contract was a subordinate contract under the premise that the said service contract was terminated. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is without merit.

C. Judgment on the defendant's defense of set-off

1) The defendant's gist of defense

On the wind that the non-party company did not perform its duty to lend operating expenses and delayed over a long period of time for the defendant's improvement project, and the defendant did not incur excessive operating expenses, and after the termination of the second service contract of this case, the non-party company selected the city and the future as a new rearrangement project management company on November 1, 2012. The non-party company is liable to compensate the defendant for operating expenses of KRW 194,080,00 paid by the Promotion Committee in 201 and 2012, and the non-party company is liable for compensating for damages incurred by the defendant as the damages incurred by the non-party due to the non-performance of the above obligation: ① KRW 194,080,000; ② the down payment of KRW 230,61,801, the total amount of KRW 424,691,801, which the

2) Determination

First of all, we examine the above part ① damages, and the above part ① in order to be recognized as damages of the non-party company, the fact that the operating expenses each spent in the year 201 and 2012 were not required for the daily operation of the promotion committee, and the fact that the non-party company was inevitably disbursed due to the non-party company's non-performance of obligation, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, this part of the defense cannot be accepted.

Then, according to the evidence evidence No. 6, the above part of the damages can be acknowledged that the improvement project service contract was concluded on November 1, 2012 between the promotion committee and the city and the future, and the down payment was made thereafter. However, unless it is proved that the defendant paid the non-party company all the service costs required for the redevelopment project, the above down payment cannot be deemed as the damages incurred to the non-party company due to the non-party company's default. In addition, Article 498 of the Civil Act provides that "the third debtor who was ordered to prohibit payment cannot oppose the creditor who requested the order due to the offset of the subsequent claim." The defendant cannot be accepted the above part of the collection claim and the collection order against the non-party company's loan and service charges under the above lease contract of this case and each service contract of this case against the promotion committee of the non-party company, which had already been acquired on May 11, 2012 by the defendant, who already received the above collection order against the plaintiff Gap's obligee and the defendant's defense.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum under the Civil Act from January 18, 2018 to August 23, 2018, the date of the second service contract and the second service contract, and from the next day to the date of full payment, to the Plaintiff A, the person holding the right to collect service costs and loan claims, as well as 270,794,236, and 348,712,688, total of 619,506.924, and each due date for each payment.

4. As to the plaintiff B's claim

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the part of Plaintiff B’s claim.

A. Relevant legal principles

If there exists a seizure and collection order, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim. Furthermore, matters concerning the standing to be a party are related to the requirements of the lawsuit, and the court shall investigate and determine them ex officio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008).

B. Determination

On December 10, 2012, a non-party company transferred KRW 890,298,723 to Plaintiff B and I each 50% of the loans and service charges to the Defendant, and notified the promotion committee of the transfer on December 12, 2012. However, on October 20, 201, the transfer of the above credit was performed by J as the claimed amount of KRW 1,360,000,000 on October 20, 201, and on May 11, 2012, the Plaintiff received the seizure and collection order for all the above loans and service charges as the claimed amount of KRW 680,00,000 on May 11, 201, and the above seizure and collection order by J was served on the promotion committee as seen earlier. < Amended by Act No. 10781, Oct. 24, 2011; Act No. 11383, May 3, 2012>

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the non-party company lost its standing to file a lawsuit for performance of the above-mentioned claim against the non-party company's defendant or promotion committee under each of the above-mentioned claim seizure and collection order against the non-party company's monetary claim amounting to KRW 890,298,723, the non-party company lost its standing to file a lawsuit for performance of the above-mentioned seized claim, the plaintiff B, who was transferred part of the seized claim from the non-party company after the above seizure and collection order, did not have standing to file a lawsuit for performance of the above seized claim as well as the non-party company's non-party company's non-party's non-party company's non-party company's non-party claim seizure and collection order (Evidence 13). Thus, the plaintiff's claim for transfer due to the assignment of claim is unlawful [the plaintiff's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party claim seizure and collection order's non-party 208.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the part of the plaintiff B's claim that was changed in exchange in this court among the lawsuits in this case is unlawful, and thus, the plaintiff A's claim expanded in this court shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Hong Young-young

Judges Cho Jin-han