2016 Gohap5923 Agreements

Dado Partners Co., Ltd.

1. A stock company;

2. B regional housing association;

November 16, 2017

December 14, 2017

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 522,300,000 won and the remainder thereof;

1) As regards KRW 331,00,000, the interest rate of 6% per annum from September 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment;

2) As regards KRW 102,00,000, the interest rate of 6% per annum from September 1, 2016 to August 21, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment;

3) 6% per annum from September 1, 2016 to October 18, 2017 with respect to 70,000,000 won, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment;

4) For KRW 19,300,000, each interest shall be paid at the rate of 6% per annum from August 22, 2017 to December 14, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and

B. Defendant B’s regional housing association shall pay 3,60,000 won with the interest of 6% per annum from September 1, 2016 to December 14, 2017, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. One-fifth of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

9. From January 1 to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case; 6% per annum; 15% per annum; from September 1, 2016 to the date of complete payment; 226,80,000 won, the amount calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from August 21, 2017 to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim of this case; 70,000,000 won per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment; and 6% per annum from September 18, 2016 to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim of this case; and 15% interest per annum from the date of complete payment to the date of complete payment; 8,100,000 won per annum; 15% interest per annum from the date of complete payment; and 15% interest per annum to the date of the claim of this case.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that conducts real estate sales agency business, real estate consulting business, etc., Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A”) is a company that mainly engages in building business, apartment house sales business, etc., and Defendant B’s regional housing association (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Association”) is a regional housing association established for the purpose of newly building and selling apartment units in Gwangju Northernbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant business”) and authorized by the head of Seoul Metropolitan City North Korea on December 30, 2016.

B. On August 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract for recruiting members of the Defendant Company and the Defendant Union (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Defendant Union jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay and settle the service charges to the Plaintiff of the Defendant Company under the instant contract. The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

1. Location 1 of the Plaintiff’s contract for recruitment of members: The number of households subject to the Plaintiff’s contract for recruitment of members of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (2) shall be calculated based on the 0th anniversary of the initial contract for recruitment of members of the Association; (3) the contract for recruitment of members of the Association shall be concluded by the Defendant Company as a service company for the entire recruitment of members of the Association; (4) the monthly fee for recruitment of members of the Association shall be calculated based on the 0th anniversary of the initial contract for recruitment of members of the Association; and (5) the monthly fee for recruitment of members of the Association shall be calculated based on the 0th anniversary of the initial contract for recruitment of members of the Association; and (5) the monthly fee for recruitment of members of the Association shall be calculated based on the 6th anniversary of the contract for recruitment of members of the Association; and (5) the monthly fee for recruitment of members of the Association shall be calculated based on the 6th anniversary of the contract for recruitment of members of the Association; and (5) the monthly fee for recruitment of members of the Association shall be calculated based on their respective advertising services.

C. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff recruited 155 households in total from August 7, 2015, an open date, from August 7, 2015 to August 18, 2016). The Defendant Company paid the Plaintiff KRW 520,000,000 in total on several occasions from September 11, 2015 to August 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 14, 29

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The contract of this case

A) Costs for unclaimed services;

The Plaintiff recruited a total of 155 members pursuant to the instant contract, and the Defendant Company has to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,023,000,000 (including KRW 6,600,000 per household, X 155, and value added tax) to the Plaintiff. However, as the Defendant Company paid only KRW 520,000,000 among the above service costs, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 503,00,000 not yet paid.

b)additional payments;

Around October 2015, D, the representative director of Defendant LIS, agreed to pay the additional amount of KRW 5,500,000 per household (including additional tax) to the Plaintiff and its members additionally recruited before the date of receipt of the authorization for establishment of the partnership. Accordingly, the Plaintiff recruited 16 members additionally. Accordingly, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the additional amount of KRW 88,00,000 per household (5,500,000 per household) to the Plaintiff.

(C) costs of advertising and publicity;

Since the Defendant Company is obligated to bear the costs of advertising and publicity paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant contract, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 36,800,000 (i.e., 2,800,000 per event cost + KRW 14,500,000 per text messages cost + KRW 3,000,000 per event of text messages + KRW 16,50,000 per event of text messages + KRW 16,50,000 per event of text messages).

D) Responsibility of the Defendant Union

Since the Defendant Union jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay and settle the service cost to the Plaintiff under the instant contract, it is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company to pay the money under paragraphs (a) through (c) to the Plaintiff.

2) Matters concerning the Defendant’s partnership office rental agreement

Upon the request of the Defendant Company on June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff leased KRW 300,000 per month the two stories E-2 and 202 to the Defendant Association, and the Defendants paid the rent. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 8,100,000,000 in the amount of overdue rent up to September 24, 2017.

B. The defendants' assertion

1. Regarding the instant contract

(A)unpaid service costs;

In order to pay the Plaintiff the service cost of KRW 6,00,00 per household pursuant to Article 13 of the instant contract, the Plaintiff is a condition to suspend the Plaintiff’s performance of the solicitation target rate for union members within the period stipulated in Article 12 of the instant contract, and the Commission failed to achieve the above target rate. Therefore, the Defendant Company did not bear the obligation to pay the service payment in accordance with the unit price set forth in Article 13 of the instant contract, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company agreed with the Plaintiff to adjust the unit price for the calculation of the service cost, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the portion in excess thereof is without merit:

The unit price for the number of households for the recruitment of sequence 1205. 8. 7. - August 7, 2015 - August 22, 2015 - 22.962,50,002,00240,000,000 August 23, 2015 to October 18, 2015; 18.353,500,00122,50,000 on August 164, 2003; 00,0072,00,0072,000,000,0086,000,000,008,008,008,0008,820,5482,500,000, aggregate,500,700,000 won (including additional taxes)

B) Additional payments

There is no agreement to pay additional amounts as asserted by the Plaintiff.

(C) costs of advertising and publicity;

Article 6 of the contract of this case provides that the plaintiff and the defendant company shall coordinate all matters related to advertisement and publicity through mutual consultation. However, there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant company pursuant to the above provision, and since the plaintiff performs the sales agency business of another place of business outside of the business of this case, this part of the expenses are all related to the business of this case.

D) Responsibility of the Defendant Union

Defendant Union was established before the time of the instant contract, and it did not take over or succeed to the joint and several liability of the Defendant Union Promotion Committee, which is stated as a joint and several witness in the instant contract, and thus is not liable for joint and several liability under the instant contract.

2) Matters concerning the Defendant’s partnership office rental agreement

There is no fact that the Defendants entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff. The stamp image affixed on the lease agreement presented by the Plaintiff on the grounds of the lease agreement is F, which is the president of the Defendant Cooperative. However, the above lease agreement is not written by the Defendants, but written by the Plaintiff at will.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the claim for the amount of unpaid service payment

1) Whether there has been an agreement to adjust the service price

A) For the purpose of the formation of a contract, the agreement between the parties is required to be reached, and such agreement is not required with respect to all matters forming the content of the contract in question, but there is a specific agreement with regard to its essential matters or important matters, or at least an agreement with respect to standards and methods that can specify the future in detail. In the meantime, in a case where the parties fail to reach an agreement with respect to matters that the agreement should be reached, it is reasonable to deem that the contract has not been concluded unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51650, Mar. 23, 2001). Furthermore, with respect to the conclusion of the contract in question, the party who asserts

B) Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the same facts were different.

① On August 24, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed service charges from the Defendant Company as follows (hereinafter “instant first claim”).

From August 7, 2015 to August 22, 2015, 2015 to KRW 2,500,000,000,00 on August 23, 2015; - 3,500,000 on August 37, 2015; 129,50,000 on October 18, 2015 to KRW 174,50,00 on October 19, 2015 to August 18, 2016 to KRW 00,50,500,000,50,500,50,000,000, 006, 04,006, 006, 006, 004, 005, 006, 004, 005, 006, 005, 006, 004,005

② The Plaintiff raised an objection to the service payment calculated as above ①. On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the service payment with the Defendant Shee as follows (hereinafter “instant second claim”).

The unit cost of the number of households to be recruited (cost) from August 7, 2015 to August 22, 2015, 202.962,50,000,00240,000,000 on August 23, 2015: (a) - August 18, 2015; (b) 18.373,500,00129,500,000 on October 19, 2015 to August 14, 2005; (c) 18.14,500,0063,006,0063,006,006,000,008,0008,008,0008,50,0000,500,506,506,506,006,506,506,005 won (additional price)

③ The Plaintiff raised an objection to the service cost calculated as above ②. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff again claimed the service cost as follows (hereinafter “instant third claim”).

From August 7, 2015 to August 22, 2015, 2015 to KRW 2,500,000,000,00 on August 23, 2015; - 3,500,000 on October 35, 2015 to KRW 12,50,00,00 on August 18, 2015 to KRW 164,50,00 on October 19, 205 to August 18, 2016 to KRW 164,50,00,000,000 on KRW 6,00,00,000,00 on KRW 40,50,005,00 on aggregate including KRW 165,00,00,00 on KRW 16,005,05,00 on KRW 16,005,05,00 on aggregate

C) In light of the following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire arguments, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence presented by the Defendant Company alone was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Pungs on the change of the unit price for the calculation of the service price under Article 13 of the original contract of this case, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Accordingly, the Defendant Company’s assertion on this part is without merit

① In the event that the Plaintiff fails to achieve the solicitation target rate within the period stipulated in Article 12 of the contract of this case, the contract of this case does not provide any provision as to the calculation of the service price under any condition, and the contract of this case seems not to provide that the Plaintiff would not fully pay the service price to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff on the ground that the terms of the contract of this case did not achieve the solicitation target rate, it is reasonable to deem that the solicitation target rate stipulated in Article 12 of the contract of this case is merely a mere establishment of the recommended objective for the progress of the project of this case, rather than a suspension condition that the Defendant would pay the service price according to the unit price stipulated in Article 13 of the contract of this case only if the target rate was attained

② 피고 회사는 원고와의 용역대금 조정 합의에 있어 '㉠ 모집시기별 구간 확정, ㉡ 구간별 단가, ㉢ 구간별 모집 세대수, ㉣ 기수령액이 본질적 사항이라고 할 수 있고, 원고의 이 사건 제1차 청구부터 이 사건 제3차 청구에 이르는 동안 위 사항들은 일관 되게 같았으므로, 위 사항들에 대하여 원고와 피고 회사 사이에 의사의 합치가 있었다고 주장한다.

However, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff unilaterally claims the service payment from August 24, 2016 to August 31, 2016 by the defendant company for partial revision of the service payment. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant company explicitly consented to the plaintiff's claim for the service payment, and that the plaintiff and the defendant company prepared the agreement, etc. in accordance with the terms of the plaintiff's claim for the service payment. As alleged by the defendant company, it is difficult to conclude that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant company on the adjustment of the service payment under the contract in this case, just because the contents of the first claim in this case to the third claim in this case and the third claim in this case are consistent.

③ Members recruited by the Plaintiff are 155 households. According to the third claim of this case, the Plaintiff filed a claim for reduction of the unit price of KRW 2,500,000 per household with respect to 96 households among the above 155 households, and KRW 3,500,000 per household with respect to the above 35 households. This is a result of reduction of the unit price of KRW 6,000 per three households under the initial contract of this case to the nearest half of the amount per three households. Even if the instant additional amount is included, the sum amount is merely about 60% compared to the service deposit of this case (=60%) under the initial contract of this case.

However, the instant contract does not provide for reduction in the amount of services related to the case where the Plaintiff failed to achieve the target recruitment rate under Article 12 of the instant contract. Thus, regardless of whether the target recruitment rate has been achieved under the instant contract, the Plaintiff may request the Defendant company to pay for services according to the number of households recruited by the Plaintiff according to the instant contract. The Plaintiff’s recruitment rate as of November 6, 2015, which is about 52% (i.e., 138 households/267 households X100), or about 58% (i.e., 155 households/267 households) at the time of the Plaintiff’s third claim, even if the recruitment rate at the time of the Plaintiff’s third claim, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for partial adjustment of the service amount under the instant contract, as otherwise alleged in the Plaintiff’s claim.

④ The Defendant Company consented to the remainder except for the portion of KRW 88,00,000 (including additional tax; hereinafter “additional tax”) for 16 households of the Plaintiff’s third claim. As to the remainder, the Defendant Company asserted that the agreement on the adjustment of service payment was concluded. However, even if the Plaintiff subscribed to the third claim of this case with the Defendant Company for the adjustment of service payment, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff claims the above service payment as a result of considering the adjustment of service payment on the premise that the part of additional tax payment is recognized. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff formed a single offer by combining the above additional tax amount and the remainder. It is unreasonable to interpret that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company on the adjustment of service payment only on the ground that the Defendant Company arbitrarily consented to the remainder without consent to the additional tax amount. It is unreasonable to deem that the Defendant Company had agreed on the adjustment of service payment under the agreement to the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company on the ground that it did not accept any unexpected risk to the offerer in the formation of the contract pursuant to the offer and consent.

⑤ If, as alleged by the Defendant Company, an agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the adjustment of service prices regarding the remaining portion of the third claim of this case except for the instant additional costs, the Defendant Company should have paid the service costs to the Plaintiff within seven days thereafter pursuant to Article 13(1)(b) of the instant contract. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant Company did not fully pay the Plaintiff the service costs after August 19, 2016, it is difficult to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company on the adjustment of service prices.

D) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable under the instant contract to the Plaintiff. 1,023,00,000 won (including 6,600,000 won X 155), excluding 520,000,000 won paid by the Plaintiff from the date of payment under the instant contract, and the Plaintiff seeks 331,00,000,000 won from the date of payment under the instant contract to the date of payment under the annual interest rate of 155,000 won (including 6,60,000 won, 10,000 won from the date of payment under the instant contract to the date of payment under the interest rate of 15,00,000 won, 60% per annum under the Commercial Act from the date of delivery of the copy of the instant contract to the date of payment under the interest rate of 15,000,0000 won per annum from the date of payment under the instant contract to the date of payment under the interest rate of 10, 10,010.6% per annum

B. Determination as to the claim for additional payments

It is insufficient to acknowledge that the entries of Gap, Gap, 17, 18, and 32 alone agreed to pay additional amounts of KRW 5,500,00 (including additional taxes) per household with respect to the members additionally recruited by the defendant company and the plaintiff not later than October 2015 prior to the date of receipt of the authorization to establish an association, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

C. Determination on the claim for advertising and promotional expenses

(i)benching costs and model hybrid operations costs;

However, Article 7 subparags. 2 and 3 of the instant contract provides that the Defendant Company shall provide all of the expenses necessary for advertising and publicity, text messages and operation expenses, etc., as seen earlier. In full view of the respective entries and arguments set forth in No. 10 and No. 13 of the instant contract No. 7, the Plaintiff concluded a service contract related to the open events for 00 days from August 7, 2015 to August 9, 2015, and the Defendants’ claim amounting to KRW 2,80,000 for the above 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000,00 won.

2) Expenses for text messages and fines for negligence related to text messages

According to the evidence Nos. 11 and 12, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for text message services with the Defendant Company for text message services and paid a total of KRW 14,50,000 in return. At the time of concluding the contract for text message services, the Plaintiff registered the text message sender as the phone number of the Defendant Company at the time of concluding the contract for text message services; and the Plaintiff paid a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000 in violation of Article 50(1), (4), and (6) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract for sales agency services with the Defendant Company other than the instant business and carried out business affairs, the above fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff concluded the contract for sales agency services with the Defendant Company, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of this case is without merit.

D. Determination as to joint and several liability of the defendant association

A housing association shall be established as a housing association under the Housing Act only by preparing the articles of association, inviting its members, and completing the establishment of a housing association with the executive organ such as the head of the association, and only by the authorization of the competent administrative organ to establish a housing association. Therefore, a so-called "organization during the establishment of a housing association" for the purpose of the establishment of a housing association is a "organization during the establishment of a housing association," which is established later. Therefore, in the process of the establishment of a housing association, the rights and obligations acquired by an organization during the establishment of a housing association should be attributed to the housing association at the same time as the housing association is established.

On the other hand, at the time of the conclusion of the contract in this case, the defendant union's promotion committee has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay service costs and settle accounts to the plaintiff of the defendant company at the time of the conclusion of the contract in this case. According to the evidence No. 14, Article 5 subparagraph 8 of the rules of the defendant union provides that "the promotion committee" shall be "the committee promoting the implementation of the project, such as securing the project site, organizing the association members, and the project plan before the establishment of the association is authorized," and Article 8 subparagraph 2 of the rules of the defendant union can be acknowledged that "the defendant union shall succeed to all the projects promoted by the promotion committee of the association before the establishment of the association in this case is authorized." In full view of the above facts, the defendant union's promotion committee, which is a joint and several surety of the contract in this case, has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay the service charges of the defendant company

Therefore, the Defendant Union is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant Company to pay the service cost (the above 3-A.), advertising and publicity cost (the above 3-C.) payable to the Plaintiff in connection with the instant contract.

E. Determination as to unpaid rent and claim of unjust enrichment

1) As long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the degree and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable proof that denies the contents of the disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23482, Jun. 28, 2002).

2) In full view of the written records and the overall arguments of the Defendant Cooperative's promotion committee, the above lease agreement is presumed to have been delayed by the intent of the Defendant Cooperative's promotion committee, and no other evidence exists to deem that the above lease agreement was forged, barring any special circumstance, it can be acknowledged that F, the chairperson of the Defendant Cooperative's promotion committee, for the affairs of the Defendant Cooperative, KRW 2,00,000, and KRW 202 (hereinafter referred to as "office of this case") regarding the Plaintiff and Gwangju Northern-gu E-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the affairs of the Defendant Cooperative, and KRW 2,00,000, and the lease period from June 24, 2015 to June 23, 2016, determined as KRW 30,000 per month (hereinafter referred to as "lease agreement of this case").

According to the above facts, the Defendant Union is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,600,000 for the lease period under the instant lease agreement (i.e., 300,000 X X X 12 months from June 24, 2015 to June 23, 2016) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 14, 2016 to December 14, 2017, which is the date the instant judgment is rendered, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute about the degree and scope of the obligation performed by the Defendant Union, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company is jointly and severally liable to pay the unpaid rent and unjust enrichment with the Defendant Company. However, the Defendant Company is not a party to the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant Company is not a party to the said agreement, and the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Company is

In addition, the Plaintiff sought unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 24, 2016 to September 25, 2017, which is the day following the termination date of the instant lease contract. Thus, in a case where a lessee fails to obtain substantial benefits because the lessee failed to use or make profits according to the original purpose of the lease contract after the termination date of the lease contract, the lessee’s obligation to return unjust enrichment is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da61398, Feb. 9, 2001). Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant Union used the office of this case after June 24, 2016 and received profits in accordance with the purpose of the instant lease contract. Accordingly, the part seeking unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent after June 24, 2016 among the Plaintiff’s claims under this part is without merit.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff at the rate of 522,300,00 won (per 503,000,000 won for unpaid services + 19,300,000 won for advertising and publicity expenses) and 331,00,000 won per annum from September 1, 2016 to January 31, 207; damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; damages for delay calculated at the rate of 102,00,000 won per annum from September 1, 2016 to August 21, 2017; damages for delay from the next day to the date of full payment; 6% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 70,000,000 won per annum; 10,000 per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 10,017.

In addition, the Defendant Union is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 3,600,000 under the instant lease agreement and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from September 1, 2016 to December 14, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the above recognized law, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge New Signal of the presiding judge

Judges Park Young-young

Judges Kim Young-soo

1) The Plaintiff stated “8,100,000,000%” in the application form for the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim made on October 18, 2017, but it is obvious that it is a clerical error in the “8,100,000 won”.

2) Although the Commission and the Defendants use the expression "sale agency fee", they are "sale agency fee" in light of the text and text of Article 13 of the contract of this case.

3) On September 9, 2016, the date indicated in the table No. 2-2-2-contractor list No. 154 appears to be the date indicated in the table No. 154, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings, the phrase “. 9 August 9, 2016” appears to be the clerical error

4) It seems that the window is limited to the sum of 60,000,000 won received from the Defendant Company from July 1, 2016 to August 19, 2016, and the amount received from Defendant Pesta is not KRW 520,00,000, not KRW 460,000, not KRW 520,000.

5) As to the joint and several sureties liability of the Defendant Union, the following 3-D (hereinafter referred to as “the latter”).

6) As seen earlier, the rights and obligations of the Defendant’s promotion committee under the instant lease agreement belong to the Defendant’s partnership at the same time when the Defendant partnership was established.