1. The Defendant’s KRW 170,358,726 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 31, 2015 to July 15, 2016 for the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a certified judicial scrivener who operates a certified judicial scrivener office in Busan Maritime Daegu C.

The defendant is a reconstruction association established under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents.

B. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff handled the registration for the preservation of ownership by 1,835 households among the Defendant’s members and the registration for the transfer of rights other than ownership rights.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 17, 18, 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant’s member’s registration for the preservation of ownership, the process of registration for the transfer of rights out of ownership (80% of the standard fee, and the full payment agreement after receipt of the application for registration), the Defendant’s member’s registration for the preservation of ownership and the registration for the transfer of rights out of ownership (2,805) around June 17, 2015, and the registration for the transfer of rights out of ownership.

Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 697,440,258, and the Plaintiff shall be paid KRW 474,688,672 [the details paid by the Defendant on June 16, 2015] out of the service cost already paid KRW 274,68,672 (the details paid by June 10, 2015). If the Plaintiff deducts KRW 52,392,860, which the Plaintiff was kept in custody for the Defendant from the service cost, from the service cost, KRW 170,358,726 (=697,440,258 - 474,68,672 - 52,392,860).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining service cost to the plaintiff 170,358,726 won and damages for delay.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that there is no express agreement on delegation of registration or agency contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, and it is also unclear whether the Plaintiff performed the duties under the said contract.

The defendant is not obligated to pay the registration cost because the contract for sale in lots prepared between the defendant and its members has to bear the preservation registration cost.

3. Determination

(a) Gap evidence 1 to 19, Gap.