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

A. The plaintiff is the former head of the D Village in Hanam-gun, the defendant B is the development chairperson, and the defendant C is the present head.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of a community center and a center for senior citizens (hereinafter “instant construction”) on behalf of the D Development Committee consisting of residents of D Village while serving as the head of D Village, on behalf of the D Village, and entered into a contract for the construction of a community center and a center for senior citizens (hereinafter “DD Construction”). The said construction was completed around December 2010.

C. Around November 201, Defendant B filed a petition with the Changwon District Court for the purport that the Plaintiff embezzled the construction cost and design cost related to the instant construction project, but was subject to a disposition on January 4, 2012.

After that, ten persons, including the Defendants, filed with the same branch office a complaint with respect to interference with bidding of the Plaintiff (a construction business operator who is not a construction business operator who has tendered at the lowest price while tendering for the instant construction business in preference to other bidders), occupational breach of trust (an expenditure by falsely withdrawing the proceeds of the instant construction business), occupational embezzlement (the voluntary consumption of the proceeds of the instant construction business, and the compensation for land owned by the D Village, which is received from the Haw-gun), but the complaint was made on December 24, 2012 on the ground of lack of evidence. The complaint was filed with the same branch office by embezzlement of business, occupational breach of trust, document concealment (a concealment of a statement of accounts, passbook, etc. relating to the instant construction business), intimidation (a statement of accounts, passbook, etc. relating to the instant construction business), and intimidation (a statement of accounts, passbook, etc.). However, the Defendant B received a disposition from the same Plaintiff branch office for lack of evidence on September 27, 2012 on the ground that it had no record of the Plaintiff’s embezzlement.

E. In addition, Defendant C, on behalf of the D Development Committee, shall act on behalf of the Plaintiff, etc., in collusion with E and Taeduk Construction.