1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Defendants were the co-owners of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and one commercial building on the ground, and Defendant A was the chairman of the Reconstruction Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Committee”) and Defendant B was the vice-chairman of the instant Committee.

The Committee held a general meeting on April 10, 2010, and selected the Plaintiff as a designer through the voting of the members.

On April 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a building design service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the instant commission that the Plaintiff would engage in design work for the reconstruction project and that the instant commission would pay the Plaintiff the service cost of KRW 8.5 million (including the authorization and permission cost) or KRW 77.9 million (including the non-authorization and permission cost).

On April 16, 2012, the instant commission terminated the instant contract on the ground that the Plaintiff faithfully performed its duties.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserted that Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2 and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including above numbers), and the purport of the whole argument is that the committee of this case is a partnership under the Civil Act. Thus, since the committee of this case is a partnership under the Civil Act, the debt of the committee of this case belongs to the defendants who are union members. Thus, the defendants shall jointly pay the service cost of 230,1270,000 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

Defendant B asserts that even though the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with Defendant A with the chairperson of the instant commission, the filing of the instant lawsuit against the Defendants is unlawful by filing a lawsuit against the Defendants, who are not qualified to be a party.

However, in the lawsuit of performance, the plaintiff's own assertion that the standing to be a party is nominal, and the person who asserts his/her right to claim for payment is a legitimate plaintiff, and the person who is alleged as the obligor is a legitimate defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797 delivered on June 14, 1994), and this is applicable.