The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows: (a) except where the defendant added "additional Judgment" as to the argument added or supplemented by this court; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that there was a resolution of the Plaintiff on the payment of KRW 3,300,000 in the appellate court’s appointment fees, the Defendant asserted that such payments do not constitute tort on the ground that the Defendant consenteds to the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 3,300,000 to the Defendant’s individual attorney fees for the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015No289 case as the Plaintiff’s funds.

However, at the village association of Plaintiff on February 24, 2015, the resolution was made to disburse KRW 3,300,000 to Defendant’s individual attorney’s fees for the above Chuncheon District Court’s 2015 Godan34 case (Evidence 33). The Plaintiff’s village association cannot be deemed to have resolved to spend Defendant’s attorney’s fees for the above case, the appellate court of the above case. The Plaintiff’s village association did not have any objective data, such as the Plaintiff’s village meeting’s minutes, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s village association resolved to pay Defendant’s attorney’s fees for the above Defendant’s attorney’s fees, on the sole basis of the written evidence No. 50,51,53,56, while there is no objective data such as the Plaintiff’s village meeting’s minutes, etc.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 1,200,000 operating expenses of the Plaintiff, including village events expenses in 2014, while working as the Plaintiff’s representative, should be spent at his own expense and the right to claim reimbursement of expenses against the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant spent the expenses as alleged by the Plaintiff solely based on the written evidence Nos. 52 and 55, which is set aside against the right to claim reimbursement of expenses.