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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Defendant is the Housing Redevelopment Development Project Promotion Committee established and approved by the Government City pursuant to the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).

B. On August 22, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract with regard to B, the representative of the Defendant at the time of the Defendant, the agent of the Resident General Meeting, and the public relations services for the Resident General Meeting, with the amount of KRW 135,598,00, and the service period from August 24, 201 to September 4, 201.

(hereinafter “instant service contract”). [The grounds for recognition: evidence No. 1, No. 10, and No. 10, the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 88,460,00,00,000, which was already received at KRW 135,598,000 as a result of the performance of the instant service contract (main claim) and sought restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the claim amount if the instant service contract becomes null and void.

(Preliminary Claim). (b)

Article 24 (3) 5 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that "a contract that becomes a partner shall undergo a resolution by a general meeting of the members". The purpose of the Act is to ensure procedural guarantees so that the intent of the members can be reflected in matters that directly affect the rights and obligations of the members of the association, and where a reconstruction and improvement project association established under the Urban Improvement Act enters into a contract that becomes a partner of the association, other than those determined by the budget without a resolution by the general meeting of the members of the association, it shall not be effective

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da105112 Decided April 28, 2011, etc.). C.

The instant service contract constitutes “a contract that becomes a partner’s burden in addition to the matters prescribed in the budget” prescribed by the Urban Improvement Act.

The plaintiff asserts that the service contract of this case was resolved by the general meeting of the defendant.

In full view of the entries and the purport of the entire arguments in Section B, the defendant holds a residents' general meeting on August 21, 201 and holds the residents' general meeting.