1. In the first instance prior to the remand, the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff included a claim against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The appellate court rejected part of the plaintiff L, T, AZ, and BU's main lawsuit from January 2001 to March 2009 among the main lawsuit of the plaintiff L, the part demanding confirmation of the non-existence of the management expenses obligation, the part demanding confirmation of the non-existence of the management expenses obligation from January 2001 to February 2009 among the main lawsuit of the plaintiff T, the part demanding confirmation of the non-existence of the management expenses obligation from February 2001 to January 2009 among the main lawsuit of the plaintiff Eul, the part demanding confirmation of the non-existence of the management expenses obligation from February 2001 to January 2009, the part demanding confirmation of the non-existence of the management expenses obligation from January 2, 2001 to the main lawsuit of the plaintiff BU, the part demanding confirmation of the non-existence of the management expenses obligation from January 2 to February 2, 2009 to the main lawsuit of the plaintiff, and all of the plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiff.

[On the other hand, the plaintiffs claim for the confirmation of existence of the management expenses obligation and the co-defendant DI's family development association (hereinafter "DI association") in the first instance court prior to the remand.

A) The claim for damages against the Defendant and the claim for unjust enrichment against the Defendant were added to the primary claim for return, such as the sale price, to the DI Association, and the primary claim was fully accepted (so, the conjunctive claim against the Defendant was not determined).

(2) The defendant appealed only against the plaintiffs except for the joint plaintiff CT and CU before remanding the case, and the Supreme Court reversed the counterclaim and the part against the defendant in the principal lawsuit.

Meanwhile, in the first instance trial, the Defendant’s counterclaim claim against CT and CU only and the counterclaim against them were dismissed, and thereafter, the Defendant did not appeal against the merits of CT and CU in the trial prior to remand, and the main claim against CT and CU as to CU was finally finalized, and the counterclaim against the Plaintiff’s L, T, Z, and BU’s main claim against the Plaintiff’s L, T, Z, and BU was dismissed.