1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except where the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion is added by the court of first instance or the judgment of the plaintiff's assertion that is newly adopted by this court

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2 pages 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be hereinafter "Plaintiffs and Co., Ltd.".

The third table of the judgment of the first instance court " August 11, 2016" shall be applied to " August 29, 2016."

After the 7th instance judgment of the first instance court, “(in addition, there is no evidence to see that the Plaintiff entered into a new service contract with the Defendant with the same content as the instant service contract)”.

The 8th instance judgment of the first instance court was “a circumstance” and most of the 6,344,000,000 service fees corresponding to 488 members at the time when the establishment of a housing association was authorized (=13,00,000 x 488 members) were paid to D.

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant service agreement is merely an incidental contract that supplements the part of service fees while maintaining its identity with the agency agreement entered into with D Co., Ltd. on September 3, 2015.

Therefore, since the instant agency contract was ratified by the Defendant’s general meeting, it should be deemed that the instant service contract was ratified.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff recruited local partners of 211 households in cooperation with D Co., Ltd., and according to Article 5 of the instant service contract, 40% out of the remaining 65% of the remaining remaining 35% of the existing sale in lots is paid to D Co., Ltd., and 25% of the service fees to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the service fees of 1,160,50,000 won (=[13,00,000 won per household x 211 generation x 25%) x 25% (25%) and delay damages.

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment is as follows.