2. The defendants are the defendants.

A. On March 26, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 60,000,000 to Defendant B District Urban Development Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) under the pretext of operating expenses of the association.

(hereinafter “Agreement on Loan for Consumption”). B.

At the time, Defendant C, who was the president of the Defendant Partnership, affixed the official seal of the Defendant Union on the loan certificates, notes, receipts (Evidence A No. 1-2, 3), etc., and jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant C individual, Defendant D (director of the Defendant Partnership), and E on behalf of each Defendant Union.

[Ground of Recognition] (Ground of Acknowledgement) A’s evidence Nos. 1-1 to 2-1 (the Defendants) are deemed to have been led to confession

2. Determination as to the assertion of the Plaintiff and Defendant Union

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 60,000,000 to the defendant union, barring any special circumstance. The plaintiff's assertion is with merit. 2) Since the defendant union asserts that the loan of this case is null and void without the resolution of the general meeting of the association, the following circumstances can be taken into account as a whole the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1-1 and No. 1-3, the defendant union is established under the Urban Development Act. <1> The defendant union is established under the Urban Development Act, and Article 15 (3) of the former Urban Development Act, which was in force at the time of this case, and Article 35 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the loan of this case shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting of the association, and Article 22 subparagraph 3 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant union provides that the agreement of this case is null and void.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da61008 delivered on March 23, 2001, etc.). 3 The defendant union’s assertion is reasonable, and the plaintiff’s primary claim against the defendant union is ultimately a claim against the defendant union.