(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment made by the confession of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. On April 9, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate consulting service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the Defendants on the location of the D project in Yangju-si, Gyeonggi-do.

The instant service contract was drafted by Defendant B, but actually the instant service contract was concluded between Defendant B and Defendant C.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 1330 million to the Defendants in accordance with the instant service contract.

However, around May 207, the Defendants entered into a contract for the same land purchase work with Nonparty E on the same real estate, and performed land purchase work with the above corporation E.

On the other hand, on July 31, 2007, the Defendants notified the Plaintiff of the intent of rescission of the instant service contract.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 133,00,000 paid from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. As long as the establishment of a disposition document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the statement. In a case where there is any difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the parties expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret the document in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement

(Supreme Court Decision 200Da48265 delivered on February 26, 2002, etc.). Gilet, A, et al.