1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff entered into a management service contract with the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the Urban Renewal 3 Urban Renewal Acceleration District (hereinafter referred to as the “Promotion Committee”) and provided services equivalent to KRW 126,000,000 to the Promotion Committee in accordance with the terms of the above contract.

Therefore, the defendant and the designated parties who guaranteed the obligation of the promotion committee as the promotion committee member should return the above loan to the plaintiff and pay the service fees.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, around January 201, the Promotion Committee entered into a contract for the specialized management of the market improvement project with C, the representative director of which was the plaintiff (hereinafter "the instant service contract"), and in the above service contract, C entered into a contract for the management of the market improvement project (hereinafter "the instant service contract"), and C entered into a contract for the maintenance plan, authorization for the establishment of a partnership, the selection of a contractor, and approval for the management and disposal plan, and loaned expenses necessary for the operation of the Promotion Committee within the limit of KRW 500,000 per month, to the extent of KRW 500,000 per month. The fact that the designated parties D, E, F, G, H, I, and the deceased on August 15, 2013, and that the deceased on August 15, 201

According to the above facts of recognition, since the parties to the service contract of this case are C Co., Ltd., the plaintiff's assertion seeking the return of loans and payment of service fees to the defendant and the designated parties on the premise that the parties to the service contract of this case are the plaintiff cannot be accepted without

[On the other hand, since the correction of the indication of a party is permitted only to the extent that the identity of the party is recognized, it is unlawful to correct the indication of the party to the company as the company in the lawsuit filed under the name of the person who was the representative director of the company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da41496, Jan. 23, 1998; 2008Da11276, Jun. 12, 2008). Therefore, the Plaintiff as the amendment of August 8, 2014.