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

A. The plaintiffs are occupants of, and the representative of, the I Apartment-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). The defendant was the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case from March 8, 2006 to December 31, 2007.

B. On January 29, 2000, the Defendant’s wifeJ concluded a lease agreement with respect to child care centers in the instant apartment complex (hereinafter “child care centers in this case”) and operated child care centers.

C. On November 2, 2012, the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case filed a lawsuit against the above J against the above J to seek the transfer of the child care center of this case on the ground that the above lease contract for the child care center of this case has expired, and on June 7, 2013, the council of occupants' representatives decided that "the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case shall have terminated on February 28, 2012" as "the lease contract of this case for the child care center of this case has expired on June 7, 2013" as "the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case shall be delivered the child care center of this case to the council of occupants' representatives," which was appealed by the Daejeon District Court 2013Na954 decided August 18, 2014, on the ground that "the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case is a party to the child care center of this case" was dismissed on the ground that "the council of occupants' representatives of this case shall be dismissed."

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant, on the invitation of the Defendant, “The assertion of a child-care center on the progress report of the lusony lawsuit”, stated that “Dong representatives bid a child-care center with the premium of KRW 160,000,000 for the premium of KRW 160,000,000,” and advertised it through a business operator “K.” The representative who seeks to produce the premium of KRW 160,000 to the president of the current child-care center may not be deemed to have illegally received the premium of KRW 160,00,000 on the basis of lusony’s ground.”