1. All claims filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) are members of the C Regional Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Association”) and have the right to claim damages for nonperformance or tort against the instant Association. The instant Union completed provisional seizure of KRW 800,000,000 against the Defendant’s real estate owned by the Defendant as the right to preserve monetary claims of KRW 800,000,000 as the preserved right. As such, the Plaintiffs, as creditors of the instant Union, seek reimbursement of KRW 200,000,000, out of the monetary claims of KRW 800,000,000, which are the right to be preserved for the said provisional seizure, by subrogation of the Plaintiff as creditors of the instant Union.

Judgment

According to the evidence evidence No. 3, the existence of the preserved claim and the necessity for preservation of the preserved claim, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the association, etc. of this case by asserting that the association of this case violated the fiduciary duty on the inclusion of development costs in advance by the Seoul Central District Court 2018Gahap537697, Jun. 5, 2018, and caused damages to the plaintiffs to be subject to imposition of development charges and additional dues. The above court did not take measures to prevent additional charges on Nov. 28, 2019 because "the association of this case did not notify its members of the imposition of development charges for more than three years and did not take measures to prevent additional charges." Thus, the association of this case has the obligation to compensate for damages equivalent to the additional charges imposed by the plaintiffs due to the violation of fiduciary duty." Since it is obvious that the court rendered a partial acceptance of the plaintiffs' claim by the plaintiffs (the aggregate amount of each cited amount) and thus, can be recognized as the existence of the plaintiffs' claims to be preserved by subrogation.

According to the facts acknowledged prior to the necessity of preservation and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above-related judgment of this case.