1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The facts below the basis facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the whole purport of the pleadings. A.

The plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives comprised of sectional owners of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government A apartment (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). The defendant B served as the chairperson of the plaintiff from January 14, 201 to December 31, 201, defendant C, and D are those elected as the representatives of 3 Dongs and 9 Dongs of the apartment of this case on November 5, 2010.

B. Upon Defendant B’s application of provisional disposition of suspending the performance of duties against the Defendants, including the Plaintiff’s president and president, etc. (hereinafter “instant provisional disposition”), the Defendants spent the Plaintiff’s reserve funds of KRW 4,400,000 (hereinafter “instant reserve funds”) on July 15, 201 to appoint his/her attorney.

With respect to the provisional disposition of this case, the application for provisional disposition against the defendant Eul, including E, was entirely dismissed, and only the application for provisional disposition of suspension of execution of the representative's office among the application for provisional disposition against the defendant C and D was accepted, and the above decision was finalized around that time.

C. The Defendants filed a complaint with the investigation agency by asserting that the Defendants’ act of spending KRW 4,400,000 of the reserve funds in this case constituted occupational breach of trust, but the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition without suspicion on August 30, 2013. The F filed a complaint against the above disposition, but the Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office rendered a final decision to dismiss the appeal on November 12, 2013. The Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal. The Seoul High Prosecutors’ Office also rendered a decision to dismiss the appeal on February 6, 2014.

2. The Defendants’ determination as to the principal safety defense by the Defendants is based on the facts constituting an offense of breach of trust in relation to the Plaintiff’s business. F is punished by a fine of KRW 2,00,000,000, under this Court’s Ordinance, based on the criminal facts of breach of trust.