1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport 1.1.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument emphasized by the defendant in the trial as set forth in the following 2, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment on the argument that the defendant emphasizes

A. The Defendant asserts that the part of the instant agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s representative E, which was ratified ex post by the Defendant, is an input of KRW 320 million with respect to deposit of the suspension of execution from the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant compensates the Plaintiff for the amount of the Plaintiff as to the Plaintiff’s input of KRW 320 million with respect to the Plaintiff’s KRW 320 million. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the part of the instant agreement, which was paid at the rate of KRW 80 million per month as stated in the instant agreement, was not ratified after the Defendant’s resolution at the general meeting, and that the legal effect of this part

However, since the management and disposition of collective property under Article 276 (1) of the Civil Act refers to the act of using or improving the collective property itself or the act of disposing of legal and private performance, a simple act of bearing debts that does not comply with the management and disposition of collective property itself cannot be deemed as an act of managing and disposing of collective property.

(2) The agreement of this case, including the amount of money paid at the rate of KRW 80 million per month, is an agreement that provides that the Defendant shall receive money from the Plaintiff and pay money to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff in order to establish litigation costs in the relevant case, and thus, constitutes a simple burden of debt, which does not comply with the management and disposition of the collective ownership itself, and this agreement of this case is a monetary loan for consumption, as asserted by the Defendant.