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

A. The Plaintiff is a non-corporate housing association that is a non-corporate entity that implements a multi-family housing construction project by using the neighboring number of parcels of land in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si as a site for the project.

B. On April 30, 2003, the Defendant and E drafted a sales contract to sell F-652 square meters, G-20 square meters, and H-28 square meters (at present, the said land was combined with C-70 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) in the Nam-si, Nam-si, the Defendant and E, which were owned by the Defendant, to sell 3.1775 million won in the purchase price (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). C.

At the time of formulating the instant sales contract, E was in the position of the president, a representative of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. 1 Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) Party’s assertion (1) Party’s assertion (1) Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant to trade the instant land owned by the Defendant on April 30, 2003, and drafted a sales contract (the evidence No. 2) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s name.

In addition, since E was the head of the Plaintiff’s association at the time, and E expressed explicitly or implicitly the fact that it would conclude a sales contract of the instant land for the Plaintiff, it would be concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 114(1) and 59(2) of the Civil Act. Home Affairs E did not present the above name.

Even if the defendant knew or could have known that E had concluded a sales contract of the land of this case as the representative of the plaintiff, the defendant concluded a sales contract of this case between the defendant and the plaintiff pursuant to the proviso of Article 115 and Article 59 (2) of the Civil Code.

Thus, the plaintiff did not obtain authorization to establish a partnership at the time of the sales contract of the land of this case, but is a non-corporate group.