1. The defendant (Appointed Party) A, the defendants, and K are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for KRW 5,912,536,790.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 1, 2002, the reconstruction promotion committee organized by some sectional owners of the B apartment units (hereinafter “the reconstruction complex of this case”) that are constructed on the surface of several lots other than Busan Ho-gu L (hereinafter “the reconstruction complex of this case”) by holding an extraordinary general meeting and passed a resolution on the establishment of the association and the promotion of reconstruction projects (hereinafter “the reconstruction resolution of this case”).

B. On November 2, 2002, the said rebuilding promotion committee held an inaugural general meeting on the premise of the instant rebuilding resolution, prepared the articles of association of the Defendant B Apartment Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”), which is a reconstruction association, and approved it, and completed the establishment registration on September 1, 2003 with the approval of establishment from the head of the Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant authorization disposition”). The remainder of the Defendants except the Defendant Association, the Defendant (Appointed Party), A, and K (hereinafter “the Defendants”), except the Defendant Association, are the members of the Defendant Association.

C. After that, some members of the Defendant Union filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the establishment of the Defendant Union, and on April 27, 201, the Busan High Court dismissed the appeal from the Supreme Court on February 27, 2014 (Supreme Court Decision 2011Du11570) to the effect that, as long as the sectional owners could decide whether to participate in reconstruction, it is difficult to view that specific contents of the cost sharing have been included in the resolution prepared at the time of the instant rebuilding resolution, the rebuilding resolution in this case cannot be deemed as null and void, and that the instant authorization disposition based on the rebuilding resolution in this case also becomes null and void, since it cannot be deemed that specific agreement has been reached among the members who prepared the said rebuilding resolution, and that the defects of the instant authorization disposition based on the rebuilding resolution in this case are verified as being significant and objective (Supreme Court Decision 2010Nu5592).

A: Defendant Union, : Plaintiff

1. Business;