1. There is no obligation indicated in the Plaintiffs’ attached table of “expenses related to the luxiness Litigation” against the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) The Defendant is an urban environment improvement association that obtained authorization for the establishment of July 11, 2006 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), and the project implementation plan on February 10, 201 from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government and 505 lots as project implementation district (H district; hereinafter “instant project district”).

(2) The Plaintiffs are currently members of the Defendant Union who succeeded to the status of the members after acquiring a building within the instant business zone from all members of the Defendant Union.

B. (1) On December 8, 201, in order to establish a management and disposition plan of the Defendant Union, the general assembly was convened on December 8, 2011, and the above general assembly passed a resolution on the “management of the burden of expenses related to the act of sharing the expenses relating to the act of removing the expenses relating to the act of removing the expenses.” The grounds for the proposal of the above case were to be “the act of seeking measures to reduce the losses of the association members and delegate them to the board of directors, in principle, by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on the duty of relocation and removal of the association members pursuant to Article 10 of the articles of association, in the case of the liquidation, by deducting the expenses incurred in the case of the lawsuit

(2) On May 28, 2013, the Defendant Union deliberated on the 105th board of directors’ meeting of the instant general meeting on the criteria for bearing expenses related to life-related lawsuit according to the instant general meeting resolution. The details of the resolution at the time are as shown in attached Form 2.

(hereinafter referred to as “the Board of Directors of this case”).

Defendant Union’s claim against the Plaintiffs for expenses related to the filing of a named lawsuit against the Plaintiffs on November 3, 2014, on the ground that from around November 3, 2014, Defendant Union filed a named suit against the Plaintiffs before the Plaintiffs and paid expenses, such as stamp fees, delivery fees, attorney fees, and compulsory execution expenses.