1. Defendant C Regional Housing Association Promotion Committee, and E shall be jointly and severally for the Plaintiff A, KRW 242,485,884, and KRW 200,000 for the Plaintiff B.

The indication of the claim for determination as to the claim against Defendant C District Housing Association Promotion Committee and E: as shown in the attached Form.

The judgment on deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act): The part on the statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings and Article 2(2) of the Addenda (Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) shall be dismissed.

Defendant D Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant D Housing Association”) asserted by the Plaintiffs regarding the claim against Defendant D Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) transferred all the authority regarding the reconstruction project to Defendant E, who was the secretary general, and Defendant E established Defendant C Housing Association Promotion Committee (hereinafter “Defendant C Housing Association Promotion Committee”) in order to perform the duties acquired from the Defendant Association.

The plaintiffs are to lend funds to the defendant promotion committee and the defendant promotion committee by reliance on the business right transfer contract, agreement, etc. prepared between the defendant promotion committee and the defendant promotion committee.

Therefore, since the defendant association is the same corporation as the defendant promotion committee or is in the position of transferring all the rights to the defendant promotion committee and E, the defendant promotion committee and E are responsible for the obligations of the plaintiffs.

Judgment

First, as to the assertion that the Defendant Union and the Defendant Promotion Committee are the same legal entity, whether the establishment of the authenticity of the contract on the transfer of business rights (Evidence A2) submitted by the Plaintiff and the agreement (Evidence A3) has been made, apart from whether there was a transfer of authority as claimed by the Plaintiffs.

Even if such circumstance alone makes it difficult to see the defendant association as a separate juristic person and the defendant promotion committee as the same juristic person, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiffs' assertion on this part is about abuse of corporate personality.