2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On September 5, 2005, the mother of the Plaintiff A sold KRW 480 million to the Defendant the second floor of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Government F Housing No. 201 (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by the Plaintiff on September 5, 2005.

E received KRW 300 million from the Defendant around 2007, and the remaining purchase price of KRW 180 million was paid in lieu of the Plaintiff A’s payment as a partner’s contribution.

Plaintiff

A submitted the membership documents to G, which was the head of the defendant partnership at the time, and completed the membership procedure.

Therefore, the plaintiff A is the defendant's member.

B. Although the Defendant asserted that Plaintiff B was the original Defendant’s member and was disposed of by a general meeting resolution, the validity of a general meeting resolution cannot be recognized as having been passed since Plaintiff B did not pay the return of the withdrawal but omitted the procedures for convening a general meeting from the person subject to the resolution to withdraw.

Therefore, the plaintiff B is the defendant's member.

2. According to the purport of Gap's argument, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8, Eul's testimony, fact-finding results and arguments with the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, as to Sep. 5, 2005, Eul sold the house of this case to the defendant on Sep. 5, 2005 and received two million won as down payment and agreed to receive the remainder of 478 million won as down payment, July 30, 2007, Eul received the receipt (the purport that members' contribution was received on Jul. 24, 2007 and granted members' right to enter into the association's membership rights) and the receipt (the purport that the defendant received 180,000,000 won from G around July 24, 200 and received 180,000 won from members of the association (the plaintiff's right to enter the association's general meeting).