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

The defendant is a party with the status of 70,808 square meters in Gangnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government as a project implementation district, and is a housing redevelopment and maintenance project association which obtained authorization from the head of Gangnam-gu pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter "Urban Improvement Act"), and the council of representatives passed a resolution to dissolve the partnership on May 25, 2013, and completed the registration of dissolution on June 7, 2013.

On September 20, 2011, the Plaintiff was appointed as the president of the Defendant’s partnership (registration October 18, 201) and was appointed as the Defendant’s liquidator simultaneously with the Defendant’s dissolution.

Plaintiff

On August 9, 2017, F, a member of the Defendant’s resolution of dismissal, announced the Defendant’s extraordinary meeting on September 15, 2017 to dismiss the Plaintiff as the representative of 101 members proposed by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant (the Plaintiff at that time) filed an application against F for the provisional disposition of prohibition of holding a general meeting with this Court 2017Kahap20287, but the said court dismissed the said application on September 14, 2017.

On September 15, 2017, 503 members, among 852 members, attended a general meeting of the defendant on September 15, 2017, and passed a resolution to dismiss the plaintiff of the liquidator with the consent of all

On September 20, 201, when appointing an acting liquidator, the Defendant’s member G who was appointed on September 20, 201 as the Defendant’s auditor (registration on October 18, 201) filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to accept the Defendant’s business supervision (auditor) from the date of completion of the Defendant’s liquidation business or his/her status as auditor until the first day out of the date when the Defendant’s liquidation work is completed or his/her status as auditor is forfeited, and to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 250,00 per month under the pretext of audit expenses and paralysis until the completion

On October 19, 2016, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the remaining claims by recognizing that G still has the status of audit and inspection of the defendant.

The defendant appealed (Seoul High Court 2016Na2076375) against the above judgment (Seoul High Court 2016Na2076375). However, the appellate court dismissed all the above appeal and incidental appeal on May 18, 2017.