1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All principal lawsuit and counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is D. D.

1. The party's assertion D argues that it is the representative liquidator of the Plaintiff Union, and that the Defendant, who was an acting representative of the Plaintiff Union, embezzled the funds of the Plaintiff Union, and that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 88,297,980 to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted as a counterclaim that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 21,396,428 to the Defendant, while working as an acting representative of the Plaintiff Union.

2. Whether D is a representative of the Plaintiff Union - ex officio determination is made as to whether D is a representative liquidator of the Plaintiff Union.

A. (1) The fact of recognition is that the Plaintiff is a cooperative established for the purpose of a housing redevelopment project by making a zone C (Seoul Northern-gu H 77,845 square meters) as a project implementation district pursuant to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”). D was registered as the Plaintiff’s liquidator on the grounds of his/her appointment on May 30, 2017, and registered as the Plaintiff’s representative liquidator on November 8, 2017.

(2) The Plaintiff’s president, I, J, K, and G are serving as the Plaintiff’s director. On August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff held a board of representatives to dissolve the partnership. The Plaintiff completed the registration of dissolution on September 16, 201 by a resolution to appoint E as a representative liquidator, and completed the registration of dissolution on September 16, 201. On December 22, 2012, the Plaintiff held a general meeting of members and ratified the said board of representatives.

(3) However, on September 7, 2011, E, J, and I was convicted of each fine of two million won due to a violation of the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 201No. 783 Decided July 21, 2008) on the ground that “In addition to the matters stipulated in the budget, the contract was concluded without the resolution of the general meeting, which is the contract that will be the burden of the union members,” and the above judgment was finalized on May 24, 2012, and decided on June 14, 2012 by the same court as “in addition to the matters stipulated in the budget, the contract that will be the burden of the union members.”