1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 and Defendant C Co., Ltd. with respect thereto from September 19, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for joining the Plaintiff’s regional housing association and paid contributions, etc., with Defendant B’s regional housing association promotion committee (hereinafter “Defendant B housing promotion committee”) and entered into a contract for joining the Plaintiff’s regional housing association (hereinafter “instant subscription contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff applied for the supply of one household portion (84m2) among apartment houses, which are multi-family housing in which the said regional housing association was established in the Republic of Korea, and paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant promotion committee on the same day as the contract deposit and the cost of promoting the work.

2) In the instant subscription agreement, the applicant for membership in the partnership deposited KRW 150,000,000 into the said account as the deposit deposit for the mutual savings bank account (the new bank deposit account E-the-counter bank account was paid as the settlement deposit), and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 150,000,000 into the said account as the down payment on March 26, 2017.

B. 1) The Defendant Commission, on April 2017, intended to hold an inaugural general meeting of the regional housing association around the end of that year, but concluded a membership agreement with the regional housing association B until that time, concluded a contract with the Defendant Committee for the vicarious performance of duties with the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) concerning the new construction of the regional housing association B, which was executed by the Defendant Committee, when a person who failed to meet the qualification requirements for the members of the regional housing association under Article 21(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act (hereinafter “unqualified subscribers”) was unable to hold a general meeting due to a shortage of quorum more than 150 households, and around May 2017, terminated the contract for vicarious performance of duties with the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

2) The Defendants, around July 29, 2017, paid to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the title of “a statement of the probability of safe refund”, where the Defendants were unable to obtain authorization for the establishment of an association in the event that only the Defendant’s promotion committee’s members make a safe refund during the project.