구상금
1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the preliminary claims added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning this case is insufficient to acknowledge the existence of the resolution at the general meeting of the defendant association, which is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a resolution at the general meeting of the general meeting of the defendant association, which ratified a loan contract with Korean bank and paid remuneration to the plaintiffs as evidence submitted additionally at the court of first instance. (It is difficult to recognize the existence of the resolution at the general meeting as mentioned above in light of the following: the plaintiffs' assertion on the timing of the resolution at the general meeting is not consistent and it is difficult to regard the above important items as "other items for deliberation" as "other items for deliberation"); and therefore, it is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the plaintiff's claim for redemption of office management expenses added in advance at the court of first instance, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment as stated in the following Paragraph 2.
2. Determination as to a claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred in managing office affairs and a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment added at the trial
A. The plaintiffs' assertion is null and void a loan agreement between the defendant and the bank, and if the plaintiffs' joint and several sureties are null and void, the plaintiffs are discharged in lieu of the defendant's obligation to return unjust enrichment to the bank even though they do not have the obligation to perform the joint and several sureties obligation, and the repayment constitutes a business management, and thus, the plaintiffs can claim reimbursement of the amount of the repayment against
Since the plaintiffs' right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against our bank has expired by prescription and the plaintiffs' subrogation gained a benefit from the defendant's exemption from the obligation to return unjust enrichment against our bank, the plaintiffs may claim reimbursement of the repayment amount as the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant.
B. As seen earlier, since a loan agreement between the Defendant and the Korean bank is null and void, if the Defendant used the loan, the Defendant.