1. The Defendants jointly share 46 million won with the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from September 1, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 24, 2004, the Plaintiff decided to newly construct a church on the land of the party branch of Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and entered into a service contract for application for a design and a building permit for new construction of the above church with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

B. On November 2009, the Plaintiff promoted an application for the above building permit delayed for a prolonged period due to a lawsuit with an administrative agency. On December 16, 2009, the Plaintiff, under the instant agreement with the Defendant Company, paid KRW 46 million to the Defendant Company with the following content.

The plaintiff shall pay KRW 46 million to the defendant company for business promotion expenses incurred in operating the building authorization.

The defendant company shall return the full amount if it fails to obtain building authorization within two months from the date of receipt of the above money.

C. On March 31, 2010, regarding the new construction of the above church, a non-permission disposition was rendered.

On July 24, 2014, the plaintiff filed an administrative litigation, but finally lost the above church construction. D.

Defendant B was the representative director of the Defendant Company at the time of the instant agreement.

Defendant B agreed on September 23, 2014 to return the said KRW 46 million to the Plaintiff by November 20, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings (as to the defendant company), deemed confessions (as to the defendant company Eul)

2. Determination

A. In accordance with the instant agreement, the Defendant Company is obligated to return the said KRW 46 million to the Plaintiff according to the agreement on the return of September 23, 2014, separate from Defendant B, pursuant to the agreement on the return of the said KRW 46 million.

In addition, the defendants' obligations overlap with each other as obligations with the same economic purpose, so they are jointly and severally liable.

B. The defendant company asserts to the effect that "the agreement of this case was individually provided by the defendant B, and the defendant company is not liable for it."

The confirmation document (No. 2) written on the instant agreement does not have the seal of the representative director of the Defendant Company and only the signature of the Defendant B, and the above KRW 46 million.