1. All of the plaintiff's claims that are changed in exchange at the trial are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. The defendants' judgment on the main defense of the safety defense is not a woman duly organized by the plaintiff, so the plaintiff's standing to be a party is not recognized. Thus, the judgment on the main defense of the defendants is dismissed from the judgment of the court of first instance.

B. Since the part of the “existence of the Plaintiff’s standing to sue” as referred to in paragraph (1) is the same as that of the “existence of the Plaintiff’s standing to sue,” this is cited in accordance

2. Judgment on the merits

A. (1) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of embezzlement of attorney’s fees and costs of lawsuit, Defendant B’s assertion is a person who was in charge of the 19th president of Ulsan-gu Women’s Association (hereinafter “instant Women’s Association”) located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from February 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014, and Defendant C is a person who was in charge of the 19th president of the said Women’s Association for the said period.

The Defendants embezzled KRW 3,123,620, total sum of KRW 8,411,574, and KRW 3,123,620,00 from July 2015, in consideration of the attorney’s cost and litigation cost in the Ulsan District Court 201Gahap4687 (hereinafter “related litigation”) brought against the said T (hereinafter “related litigation”), such as the Ulsan District Court 201Gahap4687, the confirmation of existence of a representative of each Dong building, and the provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties, which was brought against the said T (hereinafter “related litigation”).

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the amount of the above embezzlement.

(2) On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendants withdrawn the Fund of the Women’s Association in the name of the litigation costs as alleged by the Plaintiff, but in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants embezzled the Fund only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 8 through 11, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the descriptions of Gap evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 3, 30, Eul evidence 34-1, and Eul evidence 34-2.