1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 3,000,000 for each Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 8, 2011 to January 15, 2015.

1. The facts falling under any of the following subparagraphs may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 13 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings:

From June 2001 to May 2008, from June 6, 201 to October 201, 201, the Plaintiff served as the representative of the Dong and the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives of Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”). Defendant D served as the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment from November 2008 to May 201.

B. On November 8, 2011, the Defendants: (a) known the residents’ number of residents of the instant apartment to 330 households of the instant apartment, and known this content, and (b) estimated the construction cost of the tren damage in the underground parking lot at the time of the president of the Plaintiff before the Plaintiff as KRW 13 million; (c) but (d) while the Plaintiff was seeking construction with the estimate of KRW 38 million, the Plaintiff intended to receive an estimate of KRW 26 million from other companies, and (d) tried to execute construction with the estimate of KRW 45 million.

② In early 2008, the Plaintiff returned the stone fence construction without asking the intention of residents as the president of the Dong representative.

For this reason, among the F apartment complexes, the construction of a brick fence is delayed.

③ On October 2010, the Plaintiff amended the rules with the written consent of the residents so that the long-term repair appropriations imposed on apartment management expenses can be executed without the consent of the residents for up to 50 million won with the consent of the majority of the residents.

The plaintiff is an unimportant daily agenda without prior notice, and the management rules have been amended in mind by signing in the same place.

④ The Plaintiff has discarded the provision that the Plaintiff may dismiss the representative if he/she obtains at least 2/3 of the written consent of the residents, which was in the management rules on October 2010, to prolongedize the status of his/her council of occupants’ representatives.