1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the person who was the president of the Bupyeong-si C Apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from July 2015 to December 31, 2016.

The Defendant was the representative of the instant apartment building as a member of the council of occupants' representatives at the same time, and was the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, and was the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives from January 1, 2019 to the date of closing argument.

B. On January 23, 2019, Defendant, E, F, and G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) filed a complaint with the Busan, U.S. Police Station. The details of the complaint were as follows: “The Plaintiff, despite being aware that the age of 60 was not paid the national pension, was paid every month to H (hereinafter “H”) working as the president of the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment complex from August 1, 2015 to December 2016, the Defendant, E, F, and G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Defendant, etc.”) paid the national pension monthly to H (hereinafter “H”) and caused the instant apartment residents to commit occupational breach of trust by causing damages worth KRW 28,513,200 to KRW 28,513,20, and the Defendant, etc. committed an occupational breach of trust with H under a contract with H, thereby illegally acquiring the property from H by force the management office to purchase the lab in Han-gu, Han-gu.

On March 13, 2019, the prosecutor of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-prosecution disposition against the plaintiff's occupational breach of trust and suspicion of violating the Multi-Family Housing Management Act.

The defendant appealed and filed an application for adjudication with Seoul High Court 2019 early 2685, but was dismissed on August 14, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff was indicted of violating the Multi-Family Housing Management Act and having received a non-prosecution disposition against the charge of occupational breach of trust from a prosecutor.

The defendant does not have any evidence.