1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. Upon the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial, the defendants are the defendants.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the judgment on the primary claim is as follows: “The fact of withdrawal on July 14, 201, which was submitted on July 14, 201, and which was bound by the withdrawal on July 29, 201,” which read “the fact of withdrawal on July 29, 201,” which is “the fact of withdrawal on July 14, 201, is bound by the withdrawal on July 29, 201,” and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the judgment, except for adding the following determination to the corresponding part, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence

【Additional Determination Matters】 The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the rejection disposition to change the cultural heritage phenomenon of this case is illegal as a disposition of deviation from and abuse of discretionary power, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is an objective circumstance that it is extremely difficult to achieve the objectives of the association solely on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff received non-permission disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the withdrawal does not take effect even if the Defendants expressed their intent to withdraw from the association, as there

The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the facts mentioned above and the purport of the evidence Nos. 5 and 9 and the entire pleadings. In other words, after completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant real estate on July 31, 2009, the Plaintiff created a collateral of KRW 1.59 billion with respect to each of the instant real estate to a financial institution without the Defendants and the Defendants and used the collateral of KRW 1.3 billion with respect to each of the instant real estate to obtain a loan of KRW 1.3 billion with respect to each of the instant real estate, and the trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was destroyed. In such a situation, each of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendants was subject to the provisional registration in the name of the Defendants and the application for permission for the installation of LPG charging station around August 2009, but the alteration of the current state of the cultural property to J