1. The Defendant’s KRW 700,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 30, 2013 to December 9, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Part on claim for damages amounting to KRW 40 million

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) From October 13, 2010 to the chairman of the village development promotion committee of the Sung-gun, Sung-gun, Kim Sung-gun, who is the head of the Dong-gun, resolved that the establishment of a natural park cemetery (title “D park”: crematory facility and resting space concurrently) in the above C, which was promoted as a national book in the Sung-gun. Accordingly, on November 19, 2010, the Plaintiff was promised to receive KRW 2 billion from Sung-gun, for the welfare of residents in relation to the construction of the above park cemetery from Sung-gun, for four years for the welfare of the residents. (2) After the decision to support the above Sung-gun, the Defendant gathered the Plaintiff by spreading false facts to the old members of the business and the residents, and submitted the Plaintiff to the Sung-gun Office with the seal of the residents in the document to dismiss the Plaintiff from the chairman of the village development promotion committee.

3) As a head of the above C Village, the Defendant, as a head of the above C Village, has failed to set up any business plan even until four years have elapsed since the above beneficiary project 2 billion won. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 40 million (=2 billion x 1/50 (the number of households actually involved) equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the above beneficiary project cost 2 billion. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages amounting to KRW 40 million and damages for delay.

B. On the other hand, even if the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, renounced the implementation of the projects to support the amount of KRW 2 billion of the benefits project, the said benefits project cost is supported for the development of the C community attracting crematory facilities, which is considered as one of the facilities under the general public’s sentiments, and the promotion of residents’ welfare, and is not a property right that belongs individually and specifically to the village residents.

Therefore, the benefit that the plaintiff can enjoy as a village resident is merely an anti-private interest.