1. Defendant B’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as annual 5% from December 28, 2017 to June 14, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a land purchase service agreement with Defendant B and D on December 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant service agreement”) with the effect that Defendant B and D shall perform services, such as the conclusion of a sales contract, authorization, permission, etc., within 40 days from the date of conclusion of the contract with respect to the land outside Seosi-si E and 141 (hereinafter “instant business site”), and the Plaintiff shall pay 50 million won as down payment to Defendant B and D (hereinafter “instant service agreement”), and drafted a land purchase service understanding statement (Evidence 1-1) relating thereto.

B. The above land purchase service understanding angle states in the service obligor column that “B and four persons” are attached to Defendant B’s seal, and the name of Defendant C and the name of Defendant C are indicated at that bottom, but the name of Defendant C and the name of Defendant C are indicated above the name of Defendant C, while the name of Defendant C does not affix a seal or a seal, and the Defendants’ resident registration certificate or driver’s license is attached thereto.

C. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 50 million to Defendant C in accordance with the instant service contract, and the Defendant C wired the said KRW 50 million to the account in the name of F, thereby transmitting it to Defendant B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted revocation of fraud against the Defendants had already purchased the instant project site on the premise that the Defendants are the parties to the instant service contract, and thus, the Defendants could not perform the instant service contract, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff, and concluded the instant service contract. However, on the ground of the Defendants’ deception, the instant service contract was revoked by serving a preparatory document as of June 12, 2017 on the ground of the Defendants’ deception. As such, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants had a duty to refund the down payment amount of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff, and thus, I will like to look at the instant service contract.