1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s “603,072,00 won and its corresponding amount.”

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Housing Reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) related to the Defendants is a reconstruction project association that obtained authorization on June 30, 2003 for the establishment of the association in order to implement the reconstruction project of the F apartment complex 1 complex in Changwon-si.

Defendant E is a director of the Defendant Union.

B. On September 28, 2006, the Defendant Cooperatives and the Sims City Development Co., Ltd. concluded an agency service contract with the Sims City Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sims City Development”), and on November 17, 2006, the Defendant Cooperatives concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant Cooperatives to lend KRW 10 million each month to the Defendant Cooperatives with the content of entrusting the business necessary for implementing the Sims City Development Project.

C. On May 4, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) from the development of a private city on May 4, 2009, the development of the private city acquired the Defendant’s service expense claims and the loan claims; and (b) on May 21, 2009, the development of the private city notified the Defendant Association of the transfer of claims.

(1) On April 14, 2014, the Defendant Cooperative notified that it will terminate the agency service contract for the development of the private city, and concluded a new agency service contract with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Maintenance Planning Board (hereinafter “Maintenance Planning Board”) on the same day.

(2) Since then, on April 23, 2015, the Defendant Union notified the cancellation of the agency service contract to the Improvement Planning Board, and concluded a new agency service contract with the City and Malina Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Urban and Malina”) on November 18, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 18, 20, 21 evidence, Eul evidence 6, 11, 15, and 22, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's summary of the claim is that the defendant union entered into an agency service contract in order of the development, maintenance planning, and city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city, and the plaintiff