The defendant dismissed an application for compensation filed by the applicant for compensation.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) a non-corporate association consisting of one chairperson, five vice chairpersons, two auditors, one general secretary, and 100 members of the Promotion Committee; and (b) a partnership was established upon approval from Bupyeong-si on March 2, 2007; (c) the resident’s redevelopment project was revoked on or around June 25, 2013; and (d) the Defendant was dissolved from June 201 to June 2013; and (c) the Defendant, as the chairperson of the Promotion Committee, took overall charge of the establishment and promotion of the partnership, the management of funds, etc., as the chairperson of the Promotion Committee; and (d) from June 2013 to June 2015 to June 2015, he/she took overall charge of the affairs, such as application for subsidies and liquidation, as the chairperson of the Promotion Committee.

When the approval of the Promotion Committee for Establishment was revoked on June 25, 2013, the Defendant applied for “subsidies for the use of rearrangement projects” of KRW 4,126,351,609 (including KRW 89,783,00 in the name of the Promotion Committee’s Chairperson’s salary, KRW 30,040 in the name of full-time members’ salary, KRW 30,416,30 in the name of rent, and KRW 62,416,30 in the name of rent) around July 17, 2014.

However, on April 10, 2015, the Bupyeong-si decided to support KRW 806,425,00 (including KRW 7,350,00 for the name of the chairperson of the promotion committee, KRW 5,880,00 for the name of full-time members, KRW 9,391,410 for the name of rent), and the promotion committee for dissolution voluntarily determines to whom much of the subsidies should be distributed.

In this case, the committee of promoters for dissolution is more subsidized than the amount of application, and it is impossible for all creditors such as the rearrangement company to repay the total amount of claims. Some creditors are exempted from the remaining debts, but the creditors who have not been fully repaid continue to have the right to the total amount of claims. Therefore, the defendant has the duty to appropriately distribute subsidies through consultation with the committee of promoters such as resolution.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is not only the Defendant at the office located in the Nowon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul around June 11, 2015.