1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for this Court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for the new provision of the part “as to the determination of the resettlement subsidy and the claim for director’s expenses against the Defendant Union,” and the part “as to the claim for relocation subsidy and the claim for director’s expenses against the Defendant Union” (as to No. 6, No. 8 through No. 713) are the same as the written judgment of the first instance court, and thus, it is acceptable

Part V, at the bottom of Part V, add “(or, in collaboration with the J, and with the Plaintiff, have occupied the Plaintiff)” later.

Part 6, Paragraph 4, “A decision shall be made by lawful enforcement” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da30786, Apr. 24, 1998).

2. A new part (“3. Determination on Claim for Director’s Expenses against Defendant Union”;

A. Plaintiff 1) As a result of the completion of delivery execution of the instant housing, the Defendant Union received the instant housing from the Plaintiff, a partner, and thus, it is required to pay KRW 5 million for the director’s expenses for relocation. Even if the Plaintiff did not move within the resettlement period, considering the fact that the lawsuit was pending between the majority and the Defendant Union, it was difficult to expect that the Defendant Union would move within the resettlement period prescribed by the empirical rule. There was also a fact that the Defendant Union paid subsidies to the members of the relocating association. (2) The Plaintiff submitted documents necessary for the sales contract to the designated certified judicial scrivener of the Defendant Union for the purpose of concluding the sales contract with the Defendant Union, and actually intended to conclude the sales contract. However, the Plaintiff failed to conclude the sales contract due to the unfair rejection of the Defendant Union on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Defendant Union did not enter into the sales contract. Therefore, the Defendant Union should pay KRW 1

B. On September 1, 2014, the Defendant Union entered into a sales contract with the members who move within the period set at the ordinary meeting of shareholders on September 1, 2014.