1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) Nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance: (b) “one member who was affected by a member who was affected by the business area” shall be deemed to be “one member who was affected by the business area; (c) one member who was affected by the business area shall be deemed to be “one member who was affected by the business area”; and (d) No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “influence of performance”; and (e) the part against which the plaintiff raised as the reason for appeal by this court shall be deemed to be a supplementary judgment, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The plaintiff asserts that in the trial of the court, when the plaintiff raised a problem with regard to the Gangnam City promotion project, Gangnam City excluded the plaintiff from such project and allowed the plaintiff to submit a false civil petition, and in the process, the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant A, who is the chairperson of the I Association and caused the defendants to perform the collection act of this case in the plaintiff's business area.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone received the aforementioned unfair treatment from the Gangseo-si.

It is not enough to recognize that Gangnam-si and the defendant in collusion with the collection of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In particular, there are circumstances where it is difficult to deem it appropriate to conduct the business, such as presenting a time limit not easy to implement to the Plaintiff in relation to the collection of this case in Gangnam-si, or requesting the Defendant A, the president of the above association, in the form of business liaison, not a regular official letter, etc. However, as seen earlier, so long as it is difficult to see that the Defendants in collusion with the Plaintiff,

Therefore, if it falls under an illegal act, it is judged that the responsibility should be imposed on Gangwon-si.

On the other hand, it is collected from Gangnam-gu Won, and from the I Association to which both Defendants belong.