1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning the principal lawsuit and counterclaim between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The reasoning for this case is that the court which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the entry of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] Part 11 of the Judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted from No. 14 to No. 17.

Defendant C asserts that since Defendant C recognized Defendant B as a representative partner and carried out all the partnership-related affairs, the claim for adjudication on the land owned by Defendant C in the name of Defendant B should be deemed valid.

However, in this case, the issue is whether the claim for adjudication filed in the capacity of a person who is not a member of the association is legitimate, even if Defendant B has been in charge of the business related to the association on behalf of Defendant C as a representative member, it is difficult to view that Defendant C has implemented the claim for adjudication filed by Defendant C as a substitute for the claim for adjudication filed by Defendant C, which

Furthermore, Defendant C asserts that Defendant C’s claim for adjudication is unlawful on the ground of the formal defect that the Plaintiff did not present any problem at the time of Defendant C’s claim for adjudication, and that it is against the principle of good faith.

However, in light of the aforementioned various circumstances, the Plaintiff trusted that the application for the acceptance ruling by Defendant C, made by Defendant C, at the time of the Plaintiff’s application for the acceptance ruling, was lawful solely based on the circumstance alleged by Defendant C.

It is difficult to recognize that the protection of such trust is consistent with the concept of justice because the defendant C objectively has such trust in a legitimate state.

Defendant C’s above assertion also cannot be accepted.

The following writing boxes between the first instance court judgment Nos. 12, first instance and second instance.