1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants are residents of the Z apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in the city of the Gu government.

B. On August 20, 2008, Kitex (hereinafter referred to as “Kitex”) concluded a contract for energy saving service of Kit Apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) with the Kit Apartment Council of Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “KG Apartment Council of Residents”) on the condition that the contract price is KRW 4,560,000,000, and entered into a contract for energy saving service of Kit Apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract” and the construction price payable under the instant contract. On September 5, 2008, the future facilities of the future corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Kit”) entered into a subcontract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant subcontract”) with all of the instant construction works except for small-sized heat power generation facilities from the Kitex. The subcontract was completed on December 31, 2008 after receiving the subcontract (hereinafter referred to as “paid subcontract price” and the subcontract price paid under the instant subcontract.

C. On April 24, 2009, the future equipment was decided by the Daejeon District Court to commence rehabilitation proceedings (2009 session 8) and the Plaintiff was appointed as a custodian.

The plaintiff asserted against the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case that he received a direct payment claim for the construction work and the instant construction work payment claim of Kitex based on Article 35 (1) 4 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry or Article 14 (1) 1 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and filed a lawsuit to demand construction work payment claim ( Daejeon District Court 2009Gahap8028). However, on September 16, 2010, the subcontracted Corporation of this case changed the form or utility of the section for common use substantially and dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it did not meet the resolution requirements under Article 15 (1) and Article 41 (1) of the Multi-Family Building Act, and on the same ground, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2010Na6770).