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

A. The Plaintiff sought removal of a smokestack on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant smokestack”) against C Apartment Housing Reconstruction Project Association (hereinafter “Inward Association”) and D, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Kadan508167, supra.

B. During the continuation of the instant case, the decision to recommend a settlement on June 15, 2016 (hereinafter “the decision to recommend a settlement in this case”) was finalized, and the decision is as follows.

1) The plaintiff, the non-party partnership, and D shared the ownership of the instant chimney between the sectional owners of C apartment before reconstruction and C upper family owners. At present, it is confirmed that the rights and obligations of the sectional owners of C apartment before reconstruction succeeded to the instant chimney by the non-party partnership. 2) The plaintiff, the non-party partnership, and D agree to remove the instant chimney, and if the instant chimney is to be removed through due process as prescribed by the law, it will set the burden of the cost of removal as prescribed by the law.

3 The plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit, and the non-party partnership and D agree thereto.

C. The Plaintiff’s defect in executing the removal of the instant chimney, and the Nonparty Union filed an application for provisional injunction against the removal of the instant chimney with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Kahap81355.

In the above provisional disposition case, the court included the contents of the non-party union's consent to the removal of the stack of this case, but it also includes the contents of "the non-party union actually goes through the lawful procedure prescribed by the law," and it appears that the non-party union should obtain a ratification resolution as to the consent to the removal of the stack of this case from the members at least. Thus, it is insufficient to deem that the decision to recommend the settlement of this case alone did not have an unconditional consent of the non-party union, and that the other co-owners of the stack of this case consented to the co-owners of this case