A. Defendant B apartment reconstruction and rearrangement project association (hereinafter “Defendant association”) is a reconstruction association that implements an apartment reconstruction and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) on the ground of 26,941m2, Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Special Metropolitan City D Special Metropolitan City, and Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is a rearrangement project management contractor who entered into a management service of the instant reconstruction project with the Defendant association as a rearrangement project management contractor.

B. On April 11, 2007, the Plaintiff and the president of the Defendant Union and Nonparty F, a real manager of the Defendant Company, drafted a loan certificate with the following contents as follows. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million on April 12, 2007, KRW 50 million on April 13, 2007, KRW 200 million on April 17, 2007, and KRW 200 million on April 207, to G’s account, a representative director of each Defendant Company.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). The loan certificate

1. Loaner 1: The president of the association for the reconstruction and rearrangement project of B apartment units;

2. Loaner 2: The President of the Bank of Bankruptcy in F; and

3. Amount: Amount of 300 million won (300,000,000).

4. Terms and conditions of repayment 1): The time of repayment 2,000,000 Won Won Won (Woo 350,000,000) (1) This billion won: the tender bond shall be paid within seven days after the selection of the contractor on May 12, 2007.

(2) The cost of KRW 10 million shall be paid from the Si Corporation on May 30, 2007 when the project cost is paid.

: E (person) Creditor F (person): Won (person) [Grounds for Recognition], the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including the virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant union

A. On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the loan of this case was lent to the defendant union, but the defendant union is an individual's obligation not the union head.

In this case, although the loan certificate of this case stated the name of the head of the association as the "debter", the following circumstances, i.e., the above amount, which the defendant company, was required for the service business related to the reconstruction of the defendant association, in light of the evidence and the overall purport of oral argument as seen earlier.