1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2013, the Gyeonggi Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Game Savings Bank”) was declared bankrupt on July 1, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2013Hahap88, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy.

B. On February 10, 2012, the Gyeonggi Savings Bank lent 4 billion won to the Defendant on August 10, 2012, with a maturity of general capital loans, 10% per annum, and 22% per annum.

C. The defendant is a cooperative for the purpose of land readjustment and rearrangement project of Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government, which received project implementation authorization on July 13, 2002 by the former Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Project Act (repealed by Act No. 6252, Jul. 1, 2000; hereinafter "former Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Project Act").

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the plaintiff's claim for partial payment of the principal and interest of loan lent by the sports savings bank of the parties to the defendant, the defendant asserts that the above loan agreement is null and void without going through a resolution of a general meeting of partners

3. The judgment unit, the defendant, who is a partnership under the former Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act, shall undergo a resolution at the general meeting of partners on the methods of borrowing loans, interest rate, repayment methods, and other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree or the articles of association pursuant to subparagraphs 3 and 9 of Article 26 of the same Act, and the act of the representative, without going through a resolution at the general meeting of partners, on such matters as are required by the Acts,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da83197 delivered on March 26, 2002). Moreover, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the conclusion of the instant loan agreement did not undergo a resolution at the Defendant’s general meeting of partners. Since the instant loan agreement is null and void, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the said agreement was valid is not justified.