All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne individually by each person.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) the court’s explanation on the instant case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; (b) the facts without dispute; (c) the entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings; and (d) the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgment as to the assertion emphasized or added by the Plaintiff and the Defendants in this court; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Additional determination

A. Article 20(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, and Article 7(5)3 and 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Housing Act, and Article 24(1)3 and 7 of the Rules of the Defendant Association, as well as Article 24(1)3 and 7 of the Rules of the Housing Association, the agreement of this case was concluded on the grounds that the agreement of this case by the Defendants was an act of disposal of the total relics of the Defendant Union, a non-corporate association. Thus, the agreement of this case is null and void.

2) Determination A) In the case of an unincorporated association’s non-corporate legal doctrine, the management and disposition of the total relics shall be complied with if the articles of association or regulations stipulate the management and disposition of the non-corporate association, and since the association is conducted by the resolution of the general meeting of members without the articles of association or regulations, the management and disposition of the total relics without the resolution of the general meeting of members shall be null and void unless the articles of association or regulations stipulate it

The term "absent act" refers to a legal act of disposal, use, and improvement of a material itself, and a simple act of assuming debt obligations cannot be deemed an act of management and disposal of the material itself (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64780, Jul. 22, 2003, etc.). B) In full view of the facts acknowledged in Article 1 (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and the facts and circumstances as stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, and 13, and Eul’s evidence No. 2, which can be recognized by adding the whole purport of pleading to the whole purport of pleading, as well as the conclusion of the agreement of this case.