The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on each service contract concluded on November 4, 2009 and March 25, 2010, before amendment by Act No. 10268 of April 15, 2010

c. The term “former Urban Improvement Act” (hereinafter referred to as “former Urban Improvement Act”).

According to Article 24(3)5 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, “a contract that becomes a partner of an association, other than those stipulated in the budget, shall be subject to a resolution of the general meeting (Article 24(3)5). An officer of an association who voluntarily promotes such a contract without a resolution of the general meeting shall be punished (Article 85 Subparag. 5). The board of representatives shall not exercise the authority on behalf of the general meeting (Article 25(2) and Article 35 Subparag. 15 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions and Article 24(3)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions shall be construed as a “contract that becomes a partner of an association, other than those stipulated in the budget, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the members, and thus, an officer of the association shall be construed as having the penal provisions under Article 85 subparag. 5 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Areas and Etc.

On the other hand.