2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act);

1. Relationship with the Parties

The plaintiff is a regional housing association that implements the apartment construction project of a regional housing association in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 15,101 square meters, and the defendant has the honor to conclude an agency contract with the plaintiff's promotion committee.

2. Obligation to return unjust enrichment by Defendant Company;

A. On October 20, 2014, the committee for promotion of the Plaintiff’s association entered into an agency contract between the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company to act on behalf of the Defendant Company concerning the progress of the construction of apartment houses in the said regional housing association (Evidence A(A) and the agency contract).

B. The Plaintiff Cooperative Promotion Committee shall establish a model voucher to publicize the recruitment of its members. In consultation with the Plaintiff Cooperative Promotion Committee, the Defendant Company entered into a "contract for construction of a model voucher with the sum of the construction cost of KRW 660,00,000 (including value-added tax)" (No. 2).

The above D Co-representative E's wife F (F is a co-representative of the defendant company) shall be the representative director, and in fact, E's name (No. 3, No. 4, and each certified copy of the corporate register) shall be E.

Pursuant to the contract for the construction of the above Model House, the Plaintiff Association's promotion committee paid the total of KRW 660,00,000 (=19,000,000 + KRW 291,200,80,000 + 291,200,000 +29,80,000 +291,20,000,0000 +291,20,200,0000 +169,80,000,000,000 in the accounts of the Defendant Company on December 30, 2014. < Amended by Act No. 13178, Jan. 26, 2015; Act No. 13178, Feb. 17, 2015; Act No. 16932, Feb. 17, 2015>

C. However, the problem was that the construction of ADD General Construction Co., Ltd., the owner of the apartment building building site of the regional housing association, was excessively excessive to the defendant company, and the representative director of the defendant company E would receive only the total amount of KRW 461,00,000 paid to D Co., Ltd. on January 26, 2015 and February 17, 2015 (=291,200,000 + + 169,800,000) as model house construction cost. D Co., Ltd. is actually determined as E because it is nothing more than the company controlled by the joint representative director of the defendant company.

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Association’s promotion committee asserted that the Defendant Company would divert the 199,000,000 that was paid to the Defendant Company’s account as the Defendant Company’s business expenses to the Defendant Company’s business expenses, and that the said 199,000,000 won was paid to the Defendant Company’s business expenses. Thus, without the consent of the Plaintiff Association’s promotion committee, there is no legal ground to divert the Plaintiff Company’s business expenses for the Defendant Company without the consent of the Plaintiff Association’s promotion committee. The above assertion is just a unilateral assertion of the Defendant Company.

E. Therefore, the defendant company has a duty to return to the plaintiff the unjust enrichment of the above KRW 199,00,000 without any legal ground, so the defendant company has a duty to return to the plaintiff the amount of 199,000,000 won with 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from December 30, 2014 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

For the same reason, the plaintiff has filed the lawsuit of this case, and the plaintiff has accepted the plaintiff's request, and the main time has been reached.