1. All of the lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs, which were added in the trial among the lawsuits in this case, are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is to change the judgment of the first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and the reasoning of the judgment is to be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the judgment on the creditor subrogation claim and the judgment on the claim for return of unjust enrichment added in the trial as set forth in paragraph (3) below.

2. Change of the part of the first instance judgment 16th 16th 16th 16th 16 " " insofar as the board of directors has approved the conclusion of the instant agreement in advance or there is no assertion or evidence as to the fact that there was ratification by the Defendants later, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was prior approval of the Defendants' board of directors or there was ratification by the Defendants of the instant agreement (According to the basic facts and the aforementioned evidence, although the Defendants take the position that the Defendants would make a dividend to the members, it is difficult to view that the Defendants would have ratified the validity of the instant agreement that provides a specific and conclusive dividend obligation, and it is difficult to see that the Defendants would have made a ratification of the validity of the instant agreement, as the main agent of the instant development project, and it appears only to have expressed

3. Determination as to a claim for additional trial

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The instant association, which subrogated the instant association, has the authority to request the Defendants to pay dividends to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant agreement. The Plaintiffs have the right to claim cash dividends to the instant association in accordance with the business plan approved at the extraordinary general meeting of June 30, 2012. To preserve the claim, the instant association exercises the right to demand the said distribution against the Defendants. 2) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is sufficient to separate settlement against the instant association.