1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 42,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 1, 2017 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's request for judgment as to the claim against the defendant B: The reasons for the claim are as shown in the attached Form.

(A) Article 208(3)3 (Service by Public Notice) of the Civil Procedure Act applies only between the plaintiff and the defendant B. The plaintiff asserted by the plaintiff as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C. The plaintiff was requested from the defendant B, and the defendant was requested from the defendant D (hereinafter "D") to provide consultation on the sale of the building in the name of the stock company D (hereinafter "D"), which is a shareholder and executive officer, (hereinafter "the building in this case"), and entered into a consulting contract (hereinafter "the service contract in this case") with the service price of KRW 42 million, and the above company made efforts by the plaintiff that sold the building in this case to E.

Therefore, the Defendants who acquired the above sale price by sale shall pay the Plaintiff the agreed price under the instant service contract.

Defendant C’s assertion is either an individual qualification or a representative qualification D, nor does Defendant C request the Plaintiff to sell the instant building.

Judgment

The facts that the Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with Defendant B, as the representative director and the shareholder of Defendant C, and that Defendant B was a director and the shareholder of Defendant D, and that Defendant B signed “B (agent)” next to the column stating “D Co., Ltd.’s representative C” in the instant service contract are either not disputed between the above parties or that the entire purport of the pleadings is recognized in full view of the entire purport of the pleadings. However, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B has the authority to enter into the instant service contract on behalf of Defendant B or Defendant C, and there is no other legal basis to acknowledge that the instant service contract extends to Defendant C.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C is a shareholder and representative director of Defendant C, and is naturally responsible under the instant service contract. However, the Plaintiff is a shareholder or representative director of the corporation.