1. Defendant 1, among the judgment of the court of first instance, falls under the following amount ordering payment.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the term "contract for construction works" in the fourth part of the first instance judgment shall be applied to "contract for construction works" (hereinafter referred to as "contract for construction works of this case").

On the 6th and 6th of the first instance judgment, the term “instant contract” has been written as “the instant construction contract”.

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The remittance was made” in Part 8, and the following details are added thereto:

On January 11, 2010, the Plaintiff, S, and T entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant Union with a total of KRW 3,096,368,508 (of these, the Plaintiff 1,238,547,404) as operating expenses pursuant to Article 16(1) of the instant construction contract. On April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff, S, and T entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant Union with a view to lending KRW 1,238,50,00 (of these, the Plaintiff 1,238,547,404) within the limit of KRW 50 billion pursuant to Article 16 of the instant construction contract. On April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff, S, and T entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant Association with a view to lending KRW 3,00,000,000,000,000 of the attached Form No. 7 of the first instance judgment, “The payment was excluded from KRW 3014,001,0000.

Article 11 and Article 13 of the Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010) shall be amended to “Article 11(1) of the former Urban Improvement Act (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010).”

No. 8 of the judgment of the first instance court, "No. 5 and 6" of the first instance judgment shall be added to "No. 5 and 8."

2. The parties' assertion

A. On December 6, 2009, the Defendant Union asserted by the Plaintiff is separate from the extraordinary general meeting.