1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. Establishment of money borrowed and collateral security 1) Regional Housing Association (hereinafter “instant association”)

(2) Around November 28, 2005, the cooperative of this case established a regional housing association established for the purpose of constructing an apartment in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, which is a non-corporate association under the Civil Act. (2) Around November 28, 2005, the cooperative of this case set up a collective security (hereinafter “instant collective security (hereinafter “instant collective security”) as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to each of the real estate owned by the association of this case as security, as to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which was owned by the association of this case (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. 1) Defendant B applied for the voluntary auction of the instant real estate on the basis of the instant collateral security, and Defendant B applied for the auction procedure following the auction procedure (Korean Government District Court F; hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

(2) At the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff paid 901,119,999 won as the highest bidder, and on July 25, 2007, the ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate was completed in the future of the Plaintiff.

3) On the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure held on August 20, 207, Defendant B received dividends of KRW 109,547,729, and Defendant C, respectively. (c) Meanwhile, the instant association filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, asserting that the Plaintiff who purchased the instant real estate in the instant auction procedure, which was conducted on the basis of an invalid right to collateral security, was unable to acquire its ownership, because the instant mortgage was established in violation of the union regulations. (iv) Meanwhile, the instant association filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, by asserting that the Plaintiff could not acquire its ownership.

2. As to this, the Plaintiff’s tort committed by the president of the instant partnership.