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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around October 17, 2012, the Defendant subscribed to the Plaintiff’s membership and paid a sum of KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff; (b) applied for a payment order against the Defendant on December 17, 2014, claiming the return of the said money after withdrawing from the Plaintiff’s membership; and (c) received the instant payment order on December 18, 2014; and (d) received a compulsory decision to commence compulsory sale of part of the Plaintiff’s business site based on the said payment order

However, the instant payment order was issued under the condition that the Defendant did not claim the return of the down payment because the time of refund does not arrive, and thus, a compulsory execution based on the said payment order is unfair, and thus, it should be rejected as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The lawsuit of this case filed by the Plaintiff by the Defendants is a lawsuit concerning collective ownership property, and the Plaintiff, a non-corporate group, shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting of partners to proceed with the lawsuit in its name. Since the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case against the Defendant without the resolution of the general meeting of partners, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful.

C. 1) We examine the case, and the lawsuit on collective property can only be filed in the form of an indispensable co-litigation under the name of the non-corporate group, or all its members become the parties thereto, and the lawsuit filed by the non-corporate group without a resolution of a general meeting of members shall be deemed unlawful by holding special authorization as to the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da46600, Oct. 22, 1999; 98Da46600, Sept. 15, 2005; 2004Da44971, Sept. 15, 2005; 2006Da64573, Jul. 26, 2007).