1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the instant lawsuits, KRW 160,853,430 against Defendant B and this.

Basic Facts

The "D Promotion Committee for the Establishment of Urban Environment Improvement Association" (hereinafter referred to as the "D Promotion Committee") is an association establishment promotion committee consisting of the establishment of the association to implement the urban environment improvement project of D in the area of 62,00 square meters in Jung-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, for the purpose of implementing the urban environment improvement project of D, and has obtained approval from the head of the Gu among Daejeon Metropolitan City on April

Defendant B is a person who was the chairperson of the D Promotion Council, Defendant C is a former auditor, and F is a former adviser.

On October 2, 2010, D Promotion Council decided to select the Plaintiff as a rearrangement project management contractor in relation to the aforementioned urban environment rearrangement project, and entered into a service contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on November 2, 2010 with the content that the Plaintiff would provide services relating to establishment, etc. (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

As between August 16, 2010 and July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 200 million to D Promotion Officers in accordance with the instant service agreement, as stipulated in the instant service agreement.

(2) On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff notified that the instant service contract was terminated as of December 31, 2013, on the ground that D promotional executives used the instant loan amounting to KRW 50 million differently from the agreement on the instant loan, and demanded the return of the instant loan by December 31, 2013, on the ground that the instant service contract was terminated as of December 31, 2013.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the instant loan against Daejeon District Court 2014Gahap5320, Daejeon District Court 2014.

On January 22, 2015, the foregoing court terminated the instant service contract on December 31, 2013 due to the grounds for termination of the agreement, and the Defendant is obligated to return the instant loan to the Plaintiff in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant service agreement. The instant loan claim is a claim for which the due date for the repayment of the loan has not been specified, and thus, the Plaintiff returned the instant loan to the Defendant by December 31, 2013.