A. The Defendant Promotion Committee is an organization whose establishment promotion committee was approved by the head of Gwangju Metropolitan City North Korea on May 2, 2006 to implement the C housing redevelopment project on the size of 166,986 square meters in the area of 166,986 square meters in North-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, and Defendant B was an officer of the Defendant Promotion Committee.

B. Defendant B entered into a service agreement relating to the resident general meeting with the Plaintiff as the representative of the person who convened the resident general meeting in order to convene a resident general meeting with the approval of the Gwangju North-gu Office, since the Defendant promotion committee did not take the procedure for the appointment of a successor even though the term of office of the officer of the Defendant promotion committee expired.

(hereinafter “instant service contract”). C.

According to the instant service contract, from September 22, 2016 to October 6, 2016, the Plaintiff provided services, such as demands for written resolution to hold the residents’ general meeting of the instant promotion committee, public relations activities, direct inducement of participation, management of public relations personnel, etc., and was paid an amount of KRW 200,000 per day per the head of the public relations team, the head of the public relations office, and the head of the public relations office, and the head of the public relations office and the head of 21 person per the daily amount

The Plaintiff provided services in accordance with the instant service contract and was held at a general meeting on October 6, 2016, but was not paid KRW 39,540,000 in total for the services provided by public relations personnel who actually provided services.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff primarily asserted that Defendant B is a party to the instant service contract, and claims the instant service fee against Defendant B.

However, according to the statement and image of Gap evidence No. 3, the service contract of this case is printed with "C Housing Redevelopment Project Establishment Promotion Committee B" and the official seal of "F" can be recognized. Thus, the defendant B is an individual.