1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the following parts and the part concerning the Plaintiff’s dispute as the grounds for appeal and the additional assertion in this court, as stated in the following Paragraph 2, and thus, it is identical to the statement in the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The reasoning of the first instance judgment of the first instance court is as follows: (a) the term "the E Association" from the E Association is used as "the E Association (hereinafter referred to as "N Association")"; and (b) the term "E Association" in the part (hereinafter referred to as "E Association") shall be incorporated as "N Association".

The reasons for the written judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: ① (1) in the first instance (from the third 9th to the third 13th) shall be deleted; ②, ③, ④, ③, ④ each, ②, ③ and ③.

The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance in Article 3-4(4)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(6)(1)(1)(3)(1)(1)(1)(1

2. Additional or supplementary judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of acceptance of the obligation for construction cost, the Defendant is an association established for the acceptance of the instant hospital, and the Defendant was appointed as the Defendant’s auditor by taking over the obligation for construction cost to the Plaintiff of the N association during the process of the establishment of the association, on the other hand, by paying the construction cost in order due to financial problems. The first instance court considered that there was no resolution of the Defendant’s board of directors regarding the acceptance of the obligation for construction cost based on the minutes of the board of directors (No. 4) dated March 4, 2015 and the minutes of the board of directors (No. 2) dated April 6, 2015, but the above evidence Nos. 2 and 4 were all forged, and thus, the first instance court was erroneous in its determination. Rather, in light of the report (No. 1 and 2 evidence No. 1) prepared by the Defendant during the process of acquiring the instant hospital, the Defendant’s acquisition of the obligation for construction cost against the Plaintiff.