1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a housing redevelopment and rearrangement project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), which has obtained authorization from the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 1, 201 as a rearrangement project zone. The Plaintiff is selected as a full-time director on June 20, 2010, and is paid the remuneration of KRW 2.5 million per month, bonus year, KRW 10 million per month (four times per month, in March, 6, September, and December, respectively), and is a person who performs his/her duties. D is selected as the head of the association at the above inaugural general meeting, and is paid the remuneration of KRW 3 million, KRW 1,200,000 per month (three million, six months, September, and KRW 3 million each month) and is a person who performs his/her duties.

B. 1) The Defendant’s resolution, etc. at the Defendant’s general meeting held on December 14, 2013 to select E as the president of the partnership, F, and Plaintiff as each full-time director (hereinafter “instant general meeting resolution”).

(2) Around October 2014, 2014, the Seoul Administrative Court issued a disposition to change the establishment of an association with the head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City changed the head of the association into E. However, the Seoul Administrative Court rendered a decision to revoke the disposition to revoke the approval of change on October 30, 2014 on the ground that the resolution of the general assembly was unlawful. The above judgment was all dismissed, and the appeal became final and conclusive on July 23, 2015. (2) E resigned from December 24, 2014. The extended F transferred the business of the head of the association, and the Plaintiff transferred the business of the head of the association. Since December 14, 2013, the date of the resolution of the general assembly of this case, the Plaintiff performed the Defendant’s full-time director’s office until the new director is appointed at the Defendant’s general meeting held on April 23, 2016.

C. On the other hand, when the plaintiff borrows funds or uses the rearrangement project costs, or when concluding a contract to become a partner's burden in addition to the matters stipulated in the budget, it shall undergo the resolution of the general meeting, notwithstanding the fact that it is subject to the resolution