1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant does not exist.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is an urban environment improvement association that received authorization for the establishment on July 11, 2006 under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”); and authorization for the implementation of the project on February 10, 201 from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu.

B. The Plaintiff is the owner of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground C Building 101 (hereinafter “instant building”) located within the Defendant’s rearrangement project zone, and is the Defendant’s member.

C. On December 8, 2011, at a regular (management disposition) meeting held by the Defendant on December 8, 2011, the “case of processing the burden of expenses related to the lusing lawsuit” was resolved, and the reason for the proposal of the above agenda is anticipated to proceed with the lusing lawsuit following the failure to move after relocation. In this case, the association’s articles of incorporation applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on the duty to move and remove the members of the association pursuant to Article 10 to the principle that the expenses incurred in the lawsuit shall be borne by the parties and the expenses incurred in the lawsuit shall, in principle, be deducted at the

(hereinafter “instant resolution”) D.

On December 31, 2012, the defendant obtained approval of the management and disposal plan from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office, and the above approval was publicly notified on January 10, 2013.

E. On July 17, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the lessee D, etc. of the instant building with Seoul Southern District Court 2013Da46393, and was rendered a favorable judgment on November 28, 2013.

F. Around November 3, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the same amount as the attached Form to the Defendant according to the instant general assembly resolution, and this is deposited into the account in the name of the Defendant.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The decision of the general assembly of this case only seems to allow the defendant to deduct the litigation-related expenses against the union members from the relocation expenses.

Section 1, 2, 2.