1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a non-corporate group consisting of representatives by buildings of A apartment in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu. The defendant (Appointed Party) is the former chairperson of the plaintiff, and the designated parties are former representatives or auditors.

[The council of occupants' representatives consisting of the defendant (appointed party), the designated parties, and C is called the "former council of occupants' representatives"]

In 2015, the council of occupants' representatives attached a general competitive bid to replace and repair public sewage pipes for A apartment.

Therefore, on July 10, 2015, the former council of occupants' representatives concluded a contract for the said construction with F who operates an enterprise under the trade name E, and on August 28, 2015, the former council of occupants' representatives decided to approve the said free contract and the construction completion case at the general meeting of occupants' representatives.

C. On November 23, 2016, the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan City imposed an administrative fine of KRW 2 million on the council of occupants' representatives on the grounds that “a negotiated contract was concluded without a certificate of possession which was the documents to be submitted at the time of the announcement of the tender of the council of occupants’ representatives.”

On July 3, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,196,00,00, plus additional charges.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition of the cause of the claim, the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party (hereinafter “the appointed party”) who are the members of the council of occupants’ representatives (hereinafter “the above free contract”) neglected to perform the duty of care to select an appropriate construction company and conclude the contract, thereby being subject to the imposition of fines for negligence. Accordingly, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the damages arising therefrom.

Therefore, Defendant (Appointed Party) et al. jointly conflict with the Plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the obligation to perform from July 3, 2017, when the Plaintiff paid a fine for negligence to the Plaintiff.