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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “21.251.6 square meters” with the 7th 4,7th 7th 7th gate of the judgment of the first instance, and each height of “21,251.6 square meters” with “21,251.6 square meters,” and the end part of “b.(f)” with the 8th 8th mal part of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of

The Defendant Cooperative divided the instant land secured by the recompense of development outlay into four lots on June 2, 2009, as shown in the attached list of the land secured by the recompense of development outlay on June 2, 2009 (i.e., the land secured by the recompense of development outlay from 1 to 4)

(2) On June 2, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the company of large-scale and large-scale and large-scale and third-scale and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-level and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third-party and third

Since the Plaintiff continued to conduct supervision services while seeking the payment of service costs on several occasions with the Defendant Union, the Defendants could have sufficiently predicted the fact that the Plaintiff had a claim for service costs against the Defendant Union and that the amount of credit increases.

Nevertheless, the Defendants decided to be subject to the insolvency of the Defendant Union by disregarding the fairness rate of the instant business and continuously selling the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, and reducing the liability property of the Defendant Union.

① According to the instant construction contract entered into by the Defendant Association and the Middle- and Medium-Large Construction Cooperatives, the construction cost was agreed to be paid in accordance with the honor and height (Article 6), but the land secured for recompense of development outlay was paid in excess of the honor and height.

② On October 19, 2007, the Defendant, a creditor of the Defendant Union, provisionally seized the entire land allotted by the Defendant Union for recompense of development outlay.