1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant is authorized by the head of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City Office on November 22, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The promotion committee for the establishment of the B Housing Redevelopment Project Group (hereinafter “instant improvement project”) shall obtain a written consent for the establishment of an association, which includes approximately KRW 168.6 billion from the owners, such as land in the B Housing Redevelopment Project Zone (hereinafter “instant improvement project”), and obtained authorization for the establishment from the head of the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan Government on January 25, 2010.

B. Accordingly, on October 28, 2011, the Defendant, established accordingly, proposed a project implementation plan containing the contents of “total sum of 2,61.2 billion won” to an extraordinary general meeting, and obtained the consent of 200 members from among 346 members, while 223 members were present. The remaining head of the Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant project implementation plan”) approved the project implementation plan on April 5, 201, and announced it on April 29, 2012.

C. Meanwhile, a part of the Defendant’s members filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant project implementation plan to Busan District Court 2012Guhap2932, and Busan District Court rendered a judgment revoking the instant project implementation plan (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on May 30, 2013 on the ground that “The increase in the cost of the instant project implementation plan in approximately KRW 168.6 billion from around KRW 168 to KRW 92.5 billion at the time of the consent of the establishment of the association is substantially changed to the extent that the interests of the union members are substantially affected, and thus, it does not require the consent of at least 2/3 of the union members required to amend the project implementation plan, which failed to meet the quorum, was unlawful.”

Accordingly, according to the purport of the above judgment, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting on September 6, 2013 and held 247 of the total number of 347 members (= 230 of the members who submitted a written resolution (Provided, That 57 of the members who submitted a written resolution and 57 of the members who directly attended) and directly attended 17 of the members, which shall be subject to the consent of 240 members.