1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 20, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with the Gwangju District Court for a payment order seeking service payment against the Promotion Committee for Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Projects in the District A (hereinafter “Establishment Promotion Committee”). On October 24, 2016, the payment order ordering the payment of KRW 34,540,000 and delay damages therefrom (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was issued. On October 26, 2016, the above payment order was served at the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the instant case but did not raise any objection, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on November 10, 2016.

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

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant payment order is against the instant establishment promotion committee, not the Plaintiff, and is not effective against the Plaintiff. 2) At the time, C’s representative of the instant establishment promotion committee is hostile to the Plaintiff’s representative, etc., and there is doubt as to whether the service contract, which served as the basis for the instant payment order, is false or properly implemented.

B. Article 34(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents provides that the rights and duties related to the establishment of an association shall be comprehensively taken over.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the debtor of the payment order of this case is the establishment promotion committee of this case, and the reason for the payment order of this case is the service contract that employs human resources necessary to request a written consent for the cancellation and opposition to the designation of the rearrangement zone A in 2014. If the designation of the rearrangement zone is cancelled, efforts to block the establishment of the rearrangement zone can be seen as the work of the establishment promotion committee of this case. Thus, the obligation under the payment order of this case is related to the work of the establishment promotion committee of this case and the plaintiff succeeded to this.