2. Promotion committee for housing cooperatives in B;

3. C

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant A shall be borne by the plaintiff, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a business service contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) with Defendant Promotion Committee and Defendant C*, which includes the following in promoting the regional housing association project (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”).

PM (Prqjjj) contract and Article 3 (Period of Service Payment and Time) of this Agreement shall be 250,000,000 won and shall be payable at the following time:

A separate ledger with separate rate of payment, time service cost, high 50% of service cost, 50% of the recruitment of members, 12,500,000 provisional service cost, attached Table 2, 50% of the secondary service cost, 30.12,500,000 separate ledger with separate 100%25,000,000 won.

* The PM service contract entered into by the Plaintiff and Defendant C entered into with Defendant C as the contracting party, and the above Defendant C as the representative director. However, the above contract party is not the above Party E but the fact that Defendant C is not the above Party E, and the certificate of seal impression attached to the above contract is not the aforesaid E, and it is reasonable to view that the above contract party is not the above E, but the above Party E, as it is not the above Party E but the above Party C, and therefore it is reasonable to view it as Defendant C.

Article 4 (Service Period) The service period under this Agreement shall be from the time of open opening to April 30, 2016, and upon the increase of the service period, the service cost shall be increased by mutual consultation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant promoters, and C.Article 5 (Scope of Services) The scope of the service duty of the Plaintiff under this Agreement shall be as follows: 1. The scope of the service duty of the Plaintiff under this Agreement shall be as follows: 2. The overall consultation of the instant project: 3. Provision of relevant data, such as the review of feasibility and the project plan, etc.; 4. Support for the affairs related to the association, such as the selection of trust companies (fund management agent) and the prospective contractor, and consultation on the terms and conditions of the association; 5. Support for the

B. On October 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with Defendant A with the content that the Plaintiff would lend KRW 30 million to Defendant A, but the Plaintiff would be reimbursed when the recruitment of members of the local home-based cooperatives would be achieved by 20%.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Part demanding the return of loans to Defendant A (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as “Defendant”);

The recruitment of the members of the Defendant Promotion Committee has been achieved at least 20%, and the maturity date has arrived, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10 million out of the above loans on August 11, 2016, and KRW 5 million on January 31, 2017, respectively, may be recognized by each statement in the evidence No. 1-2 and No. 1-3. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 15 million and delay damages incurred therefrom, which have not been paid to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant's stock association which is the trust company of the business of this case by E, a proxy company.

Since the above Rose of Sharon deposited money of KRW 16,50,00,000 including value-added tax 1,50,000,000,000 won to the Plaintiff, it can be acknowledged that the above Rose of Sharon remitted money of KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff on February 23, 2016, according to the statement in subparagraph 1-1 of the evidence No. B, it is difficult to find that value-added tax additionally paid money including value-added tax to the Plaintiff in the course of repaying the money to the Plaintiff on February 23, 2016, considering that the value-added tax is paid to the supplier in goods or service transaction between the business operators, it is difficult to find that the above remittance was made as a repayment for the above loan in light of the empirical rule. Therefore, it is insufficient to find that the above remittance was made as a repayment for the above loan, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until August 26, 2016, which is the service date of a copy of the complaint in this case filed by the Plaintiff on May 1, 2016, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

3. Part of the claim for service charges against Defendant Promotion Committee and C (hereafter referred to as “Defendants” in this paragraph)

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The timing for payment of the first service cost under the instant contract is 50% when the recruitment of union members is achieved, and the timing for payment of the second service cost is set on April 30, 2016. Accordingly, it is ultimately agreed to pay the service cost by April 30, 2016, and if union members are recruited at least 50%, the above 50% shall be paid in advance even before the above payment date. As long as the period for payment expires on April 30, 2016, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid service cost of KRW 258.5 million (including additional dues) and damages for delay.

B. Determination

First of all, as alleged by the Plaintiff, whether April 30, 2016 set the time limit for the payment of the instant service cost or not, the witness F’s testimony as shown above is not trustable and otherwise there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, considering the overall purport of oral argument as to Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 (including the paper number), witness G testimony and defendant A himself examination, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not separately specify the time limit for payment of 50% of the first service cost at the time of the instant contract, and did not specify the time limit for 50% of the number of union members recruitment at the rate of 50%, ② the Plaintiff’s service duty includes consultation and advertising support for the recruitment of union members at the time of receiving 50% or more of the requirements for establishment of the Plaintiff’s housing association for the instant business, and ③ Defendant F’s testimony did not meet the above requirements for the recruitment of union members at the time of signing the contract with the Defendants at the time of 20% lapse of 196% of the terms and conditions of the contract.

4.In conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is legitimate, and this is accepted, and the remaining defendants are the defendants.

Since the claim against the company is improper, it shall be dismissed in entirety.

Judges Round

Judges Scopic Scopic Scopics unable to sign and affix seals