2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The rate of 15% per annum shall be paid from the date of full payment.

A. Status of the parties

The plaintiff is a law firm established on October 28, 2010 under the Attorney-at-Law Act and running a lawyer business, and the defendant is the housing association that obtained the authorization of the establishment of the housing association from the mayor of the Sungyang-dong Housing Act on February 17, 2015 in order to build apartment buildings on various lands including the land of 61-1 land in the Yong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

B. Conclusion of a contract for each fund management agency contract by the defendant association promotion committee

1) On November 9, 2012, the Defendant Association Promotion Committee concluded a fund management agency contract with the content that: (a) between the International Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “International Asset Trust”) and the Jin Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “International Asset Trust”); (b) when the Promotion Committee receives subscription money from the members of the Association, the said subscription money shall be regarded as the contributions of the association members; and (c) when the International Asset Trust receives the subscription money from the members of the Association, it shall take charge of the fund management affairs, such as keeping, returning, executing, etc. through the management account opened in

2) Meanwhile, as between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on April 29, 2013, the Defendant Association Promotion Committee: (a) for two years from April 25, 2013 (in the absence of an objection from both sides, the term of the contract shall be automatically extended); and (b) for two years from April 25, 2013, the Defendant Association Promotion Committee and the Plaintiff jointly manage business promotion expenses to be paid by the members of the Defendant Association Promotion Committee; and (c) upon the request of

The original association confirmed whether the project cost requested for disbursement constitutes the project cost subject to approval set forth in the contract, and then processed the work by the method of approving the execution of funds from the joint management account, and entered into a fund management agency contract (hereinafter referred to as the "fund management agency contract of this case") with the payment of KRW 5,500,000 per month. As the business promotion expenses stipulated in the fund management agency contract of this case, the items for which the plaintiff should approve the disbursement of the project cost at the request of the committee for promotion of the defendant association are as follows:

1. Expenses incurred in relation to the housing exhibition hall for the above project (including construction charges, rent, electricity charges, cleaning service charges, etc.); 2. Design and district-unit service charges for the above project; 3. The service charges that the Defendant Association Promotion Committee concluded with the Sonnn&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Son&C”); 4. The advertising and publicity expenses for the recruitment of union members; 5. The expenses for the service charges and the legal adviser for the recruitment of union members; 6. The expenses that the Plaintiff deems inevitable to incur for the project at the request of the Defendant Association Promotion Committee; 7. The service charges of the agent upon completion of 50% of the recruitment of union members or upon receipt of the documents for authorization to establish the association;

3) As above, the Defendant Association Promotion Committee divided the amount of money paid by its members into the share of the association members used for land purchase costs or for dry construction costs, service costs necessary for the promotion of partnership projects, and business promotion expenses incurred in soliciting its members, etc. and entered into a separate fund management agent contract.

(c) Conclusion of an agency service contract with the Dried L&C;

1) On January 4, 2014, the Defendant Association Promotion Committee: (a) the duties relating to the authorization for establishment of a housing association; (b) the recruitment and management of association members; (c) support for the affairs relating to the union’s general meeting; and (d) payment for association members;

The agency service contract was concluded to delegate all the affairs related to the association, which was promoted by the committee for promotion of the defendant's association, including the affairs related to gold management (excluding the affairs related to revenue and expenditure), design, authorization and permission, and model cargo installation and operation, to the 14,724,000,000 won (i.e., remuneration for each household unit (12,000,000 won) to be paid as remuneration (227).

2) As seen earlier, following the establishment authorization of a housing association from the chemical market on March 11, 2015, the Defendant newly concluded an agency service contract with the content that was identical to the Defendant’s committee for promotion of the Defendant’s association and the J&C’s agency service contract concluded on January 4, 2014, with the same content as the Defendant’s agency service contract concluded on January 4, 2014. However, the Defendant newly concluded an agency service contract with the content that was changed to the remuneration of KRW 13,452,00,000 for each household unit (i.e., remuneration of KRW 12,00,000 for each household unit).

D. Conclusion of legal adviser contracts and case delegation contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant

1) On July 15, 2015, the Defendant entered into a legal adviser agreement with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant regarding various legal issues arising in the course of performing the Defendant’s partnership business for one year from August 1, 2015 (hereinafter “instant legal adviser agreement”) with the terms that the Defendant would receive KRW 1,650,000 per month as remuneration, and the Plaintiff provided legal adviser services to the Defendant in accordance with the instant legal adviser agreement.

2) Since October 6, 2015 to May 10, 2016, the Defendant concluded the instant delegation agreement with the Plaintiff, with the effect that the Plaintiff shall delegate the handling of the instant case to the Plaintiff, and in return, pay KRW 5,500,00 for each of the instant cases, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 5,50,000 for each of the instant cases. The instant delegation agreement was concluded by the Plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20151, Oct. 6, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 205686, Oct. 11, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 20161, Oct. 13, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 201603, Feb. 13, 2016>

Pursuant to this, the first instance court conducted all the affairs related to the five cases.

E. The defendant's notice of termination of contract and the plaintiff's partial satisfaction of remuneration claims

1) On July 28, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a written notification stating that the instant legal adviser contract will be terminated upon the expiration of the contract term, and on August 30, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a written notification stating that the contract will be terminated by making it difficult for the Plaintiff to continue the instant fund management agent contract due to the Defendant’s internal circumstances.

2) Meanwhile, on August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 85,800,000 from an international asset trust that was in charge of the Defendant’s sales revenue account. Of these, KRW 52,80,000, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 52,80,000 in total for 32 months from July 2015, when entering into the instant legal adviser agreement, under the legal adviser’s legal adviser’s license for the total period of 32 months ( KRW 1,650,000 per month), and the remainder KRW 33,00,000,000 was the title of the fund management service cost for the total of six months under the instant fund management agent agreement ( KRW 5,50,00 per month)

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8 through 10 (including numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the claim

1) Under the instant legal adviser agreement, the Plaintiff provided legal advisory services to the Defendant for a total of 11 months from August 1, 2015 to June 28, 2016, which was terminated by the Defendant’s notice of termination. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 18,150,000 for legal advisory fees under the instant legal adviser agreement (i.e., monthly KRW 1,650,000 x 11 months) and delay damages therefrom.

2) The Plaintiff from May 2013 to May 2013 under the instant loan management agency contract.

From August 30, 2016, which was terminated by the notice of termination, to May 37, 2016, a total of 37 months from the date when the notice of termination was rendered, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 203,50,000 to the Plaintiff according to the instant loan management agency contract. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 33,00,000 out of the amount as the service cost under the instant loan management agency contract, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the service cost of KRW 170,500,000 and the delay damages therefrom.

3) The Plaintiff was engaged in all the affairs of the first instance court in accordance with the delegation agreement of five cases. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the commission fees of the instant case 27,500,000, and delay damages therefrom.

B. As to the claim for legal advice fees

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff provided legal advisory services to the Defendant until the expiration of July 31, 2016 due to the expiration of the contract term. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff legal advisory fees of 18,150,000 won for the total 11 months from August 2015 to June 2016, as claimed by the Plaintiff.

C. As to the demand for payment of the cost of the fund management agency service

1) As seen earlier, the Defendant against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of service costs under the instant funding agency contract: (i) the instant funding agency contract is concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Association Promotion Committee; (ii) the validity of the instant contract cannot be asserted against the Defendant on the grounds that there was no fact that the Defendant approved the said contract after obtaining authorization for the establishment of the Housing Association; or (ii) even if the instant funding agency contract has an effect on the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not perform the funding agency business under the instant funding agency contract; or (iii) on March 11, 2015, the Defendant and the J&D.

According to the agency service contract entered into between C and C, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff does not have an obligation to pay the service cost under the instant fund management agency service contract, as the cost for the agency service for the Plaintiff is borne by J&C.

2) First of all, as to whether the contract of this case's fund management agency affects the defendant, the following facts or circumstances are recognized by adding the entries in Gap's 6 and 7 evidence and the whole purport of arguments, namely, ① Article 4 (4) of the fund management agency contract of this case can allow the defendant to succeed to this contract or consult about the succession of this contract to be established in the future. Meanwhile, Article 6 (2) of the defendant's rules provides that "the defendant shall succeed to all kinds of affairs promoted by the fund management agency of this case", ② Article 28 (4) of the defendant's rules provides that "the business expenses paid by the members of the fund management agency before the establishment of the housing association are jointly managed with the law firm designated by the chairman of the fund management agency of this case." Specifically, the defendant's business expenses paid by the defendant to the plaintiff under the contract of this case's fund management agency of this case for the purpose of recognizing the validity of the fund management agency contract of this case between the promotion committee prior to the establishment of the housing association and the plaintiff.

On August 30, 2016, under the premise that the effect of the contract is effective on the defendant, the defendant sent to the plaintiff a written notice stating that the funds have been operated smoothly in accordance with the plaintiff's cooperation since August 30, 2016. However, the defendant's internal circumstances make it difficult to continue the contract for the funds management agency of this case, and the defendant sent to the plaintiff a written notice stating that the contract for the funds management agency of this case has been in force on the defendant. 6. 6. 6. 6. 2018.

1. The first time through a preparatory document on February 22, 201, alleged that the instant fund management agency contract was concluded by the National Assembly in order to promote the Defendant’s association and that since the Defendant did not approve the said contract, the validity of the instant fund management agency contract does not extend to the Defendant. However, on February 21, 2018 through a preparatory document on February 21, 2018, the Defendant withdrawn the instant argument on the premise that the validity of the instant fund management agency contract would affect the Defendant under Article 4 of the instant fund management agency contract and Article 6 of the Defendant’s Rules, etc., but in addition, on May 17, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the instant fund management agent contract was effective against the Defendant, such as asserting that the validity of the instant fund management agency contract does not extend to the Defendant, even though the Defendant’s association was not prepared with the same content as the instant fund management agency contract, it is reasonable to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant succeeded to the status of the committee under the instant fund management agent contract.

3) As to whether the Plaintiff actually performed the fund management duties under the instant fund management agency contract, the health care provider and the aforementioned facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire arguments to the aforementioned evidence, namely, the following facts and circumstances: ① According to the instant fund management agency contract, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.

In full view of the fact that the business expenses paid by the members jointly manage the business expenses, and at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff confirmed that the business expenses item is the expenditure item specified in the instant fund management agency contract and approved the expenditure. ② Accordingly, the plaintiff jointly managed the business expenses in the manner that the defendant as well as the plaintiff's seal is required to withdraw funds from the expenditure account of the business expenses. ③ The request for the disbursement of the business expenses by the defendant or the defendant association promotion committee was made several times, and the plaintiff approved the disbursement of the expenses at the above request and made the payment of the expenses to the accounts designated by the defendant or the defendant association promotion committee, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff actually performed the business expenses for the fund management of the business expenses in accordance with the instant fund management agency contract as the defendant's housing association after the approval for the establishment of the housing association.

4) Next, with regard to whether the agency service cost for the Plaintiff is to be borne by the F&C, who is not the Defendant, the Health Center, and Article 6(4) of the Agency service contract concluded between the Defendant and F&C on March 11, 2015, state that “the cost of operating operating expenses shall be borne by F&C” in relation to the agency service contract between the Defendant and F&C. However, under the following circumstances, the agency service contract concluded between the Defendant and F&C on March 11, 2015, and concluded between the Defendant and F&C on March 11, 2015, and concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Plaintiff on March 28, 2015, the said contract cannot be deemed to have been effective. ② Even after the conclusion of the agency service contract between the Defendant and F&C on March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff did not receive the service cost under the instant agency service contract between the Defendant and F&C as a party, and ③ the Plaintiff did not receive the money from the Plaintiff on June 28, 28.

In full view of the facts that the Defendant’s request for withdrawal of funds was based on the request for withdrawal of funds, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, in relation to the Plaintiff, bears the obligation to pay the service cost under the instant fund management agency contract, on March 11, 2015, on the sole basis of the foregoing circumstances, as the part of the agency service contract concluded with the Defendant on March 11, 2015, concerning the obligation to pay the service cost under the instant fund management agency contract, is not against the Plaintiff, but against the Plaintiff. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant directly bears the obligation to pay the service cost under the instant fund management agency contract with the Defendant. The Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is unacceptable.

5) If so, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 170,500,000, excluding the amount of KRW 33,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff as the service cost under the instant fund management agency contract, from May 28, 2013 to May 2016, with the amount of KRW 203,50,000 (= KRW 5,500,000) provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for a total of 37 months from May 2013 to May 2016.

D. As to the claim for the payment of the case fees

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 27,500,000 (= KRW 5,500,000) and damages for delay for the five cases.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 216,150,00 (=legal advice fee of KRW 18,150,000 + service fee of KRW 170,500,000 + case acceptance fee of KRW 27,50,000) and damages for delay.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. Summary of the defendant's defense

1) Since the Defendant Association Promotion Committee paid a total of KRW 38,500,000 to the Plaintiff from July 2, 2013 to May 19, 2014 as service expenses under the instant funding agency contract with the Plaintiff, the said money should be deducted from the money that the Defendant has to pay to the Plaintiff.

2) The Defendant entered into an agency service contract with the Syun C&C on March 11, 2015, and agreed that the Defendant bears the expenses for legal advice services from the Plaintiff before obtaining the authorization for the establishment of a housing association, and the Defendant bears only the expenses for legal advice services after obtaining the authorization for the establishment of a housing association. Of the money paid from an international asset trust on August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff included KRW 42,900,000 from December 26, 2012 to January 2015, 200, which was prior to obtaining the authorization for the establishment of a housing association, as such, the said money was unfairly received from the Defendant that the Plaintiff should be paid from Syun C&C, and thus, it should be returned to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff shall be offset against the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant.

B. As to the defense of repayment

1) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 12 through 20, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s Promotion Committee paid a total of KRW 38,500,000 to the Plaintiff from July 2, 2013 to May 19, 2014, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant partially repaid the Plaintiff’s service cost under the instant fund management agency contract.

2) In regard to this, the Plaintiff received 38,500,000 won (=5,500,000 won X7) that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant, regardless of the instant fund management agency contract, etc., as remuneration for seven litigation cases delegated by the Defendant Association Promotion Committee, etc.

That is, the Plaintiff asserts that part of the service costs under the instant funding agency contract cannot be deemed to have been repaid.

With respect to the assertion that the obligor paid money as a repayment for a specific obligation, the obligee acknowledges the fact that the obligee received it, but where the obligee asserts that he/she was in the course of performing other obligations, the obligee should assert and prove that there was an agreement on the repayment of other claims different from the fact that there exists a different claim, or that other claims are in the priority of legal appropriation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da108095, Jan. 23, 2014). There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant Association Promotion Committee has dealt with seven litigation cases delegated by the Defendant Association Promotion Committee, etc. in addition to the payment of the total amount of KRW 38,50,000 to the Plaintiff, or that there is KRW 38,500,000. Accordingly, the obligee’s assertion that part of the Defendant’s partial repayment is in contravention of this is rejected.

C. As to the defense of offsetting

According to the evidence No. 8, the expenses incurred prior to the authorization for the establishment of a housing association out of the legal advice fees for the Plaintiff under Article 6(5) of the Act on March 11, 2015, which was concluded between the Defendant and the JAC on March 11, 2015, are borne by JAWC, and the expenses incurred after the authorization are borne by the Defendant.

However, the following circumstances revealed in addition to the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of oral argument, namely, (i) legal advice services provided by the Plaintiff prior to the Defendant’s establishment authorization for the housing association pursuant to a contract between the Defendant Association Promotion Committee and the Plaintiff, and (ii) it appears that the agreement between the Defendant Association Promotion Committee and the Plaintiff is not based on a contract concluded between the Plaintiff, and (iii) the agency services contract on March 11, 2015 was concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, and is naturally effective for the Plaintiff

In light of the above facts, it cannot be deemed that the legal counsel contract of this case concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant after the conclusion of the agency services contract of this case on March 11, 2015 does not stipulate any provision that the Defendant receives legal counsel fees prior to obtaining the authorization for establishment of the housing association, and the Plaintiff’s payment of legal counsel fees for a total of 26 months from around December 28, 2012 to January 2015 is due to the Defendant’s request for withdrawal of funds. In full view of the above facts, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff, prior to the authorization for establishment of the housing association, should receive legal counsel fees for the legal counsel services for the legal counsel services for the legal counsel affairs of the association affairs of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, rather, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant succeeded to the status of the promotion committee of the Defendant association as it is in relation to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff alleged by the Defendant, separate from the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement from J&C. Thus, the Defendant’s counterclaim, which is premised on this, is without merit without further review.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 177,650,000 won (i.e., KRW 216,150,000 - Partial repayment 38,500,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from April 7, 2017 to June 19, 2018, which is recognized as reasonable and reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, as the Plaintiff seeks, from April 7, 2017, as of the day following the date on which the duplicate of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge B police officer

Judges Jeong-he