The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The agreement of July 20, 2017 and the memorandum of performance as of January 3, 2018 are null and void by the Defendant’s notification as of January 25, 2018.

In addition, the instant decision of compulsory adjustment is based on the agreement dated July 20, 2017, which is null and void as above, and the statement of performance as of January 3, 2018. As such, the Defendant was subjected to the instant decision of compulsory adjustment by deceiving the court by deceiving, in collusion with G et al., the former chairperson of the Plaintiff, by submitting false facts constituting the basis for conciliation.

B. In addition, the above agreement and the rejection of performance are null and void on the basis of a contract for recruitment of union members concluded on June 30, 2017 and a contract for recruitment of union members concluded on July 5, 2017, which is a mandatory law, and is null and void, which does not meet the requirements of Article 11-2(2) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 16870, Jan. 23, 2020), which is an effective provision.

C. Therefore, the execution of compulsory execution based on the instant compulsory adjustment decision constitutes an illegal case. The instant compulsory adjustment decision is in conflict with the substantive legal relationship, the execution of which based on the said compulsory adjustment decision is considerably unfair, and the execution of which is considerably unfair is made by the Plaintiff is clearly contrary to justice, and thus, cannot be accepted in social life. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the instant compulsory adjustment decision is not allowed as abuse of rights with regard to the portion exceeding KRW 117,446,00, which is recognized by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. (1) If an objection is not raised within the time limit for filing an objection against a decision substituting conciliation, such decision has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment as a judicial compromise (Articles 30 and 34 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act, which has a creation effect, and thus there is a previous dispute between the parties.