The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a redevelopment association established pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

Defendant B was the representative lawyer of F Law Firm, and Defendant C and D were the attorneys-at-law of F Law Firm.

B. On April 6, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a legal service contract (hereinafter “the first service contract”) with FF and paid KRW 556,061,270 as service price to FF on September 11, 2017. (c) The FF dissolved on July 2, 2018, and Defendant B joined as a member attorney-at-law of the Defendant E-law on the same day. On November 26, 2018, Defendant B changed the name of the legal entity from FF to Defendant E (North Korean Branch Office) with the Plaintiff without a representative change.

D. On December 28, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a legal service contract (hereinafter “the second service contract”) with Defendant E Law Firm, and entered into the said contract and the first service contract (hereinafter “each of the instant service contracts”). On January 7, 2019, the Plaintiff returned KRW 281,061,270 out of the service fees as seen earlier from Law Firm F, and on the same day, paid the said money to the Defendant as the service fees.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1 to 5 (if there are additional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) The instant service contract constitutes “a contract that becomes a partner’s burden, in addition to the matters stipulated in the budget,” and thus, should have undergone a resolution at the Plaintiff’s general meeting at the time of concluding each service contract (Article 45(1)4 of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 24(3)5 of the former Urban Improvement Act (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017). However, such a resolution was not made at the general meeting.

On May 20, 2015, there was a resolution of an extraordinary general meeting of the plaintiff who ratified the conclusion of the first service contract.