1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The Defendants are jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 26, 2009, Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial constituted a committee for the establishment of the Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association in Zone E (hereinafter referred to as “Provisional Promotion Committee”) and entered into a contract for the specialized management of housing redevelopment and improvement project (hereinafter referred to as “instant service contract”) with the Plaintiff on March 26, 2009 as the temporary promotion chairperson. The Plaintiff borrowed 30 million won from the Plaintiff for the purpose of project promotion expenses at the end of two months after the due date. However, if the Plaintiff is not elected as the president within two months after the due date, the Plaintiff agreed to refund the said borrowed amount by adding the interest calculated at each rate of 1% from the date of concluding the contract to the date of full payment, and 2.5% from the next day to the date of full payment.

The Defendants and the co-defendant D of the first instance trial jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the borrowed money at the time of the agreement.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan agreement”). B.

On March 30, 2009, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30,000,00 to A in the name of the F Company in accordance with the instant loan agreement, but A was not elected as a chairperson at the general meeting of cooperatives until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7's statements, the purport of the entire pleadings (the defendant acknowledged the establishment of the stamp image as to Gap 1's evidence, but did not know of the contents of the loan agreement and delegated his/her authority to Gap with respect to the documents regarding the special agreement in which the contents of the loan agreement were entered, and Gap's seal was used to use the defendants' seal at his/her own discretion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, but instead, according to each of the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that Gap was aware that Gap was aware of the receipt of the loan in this case at the time).

2. The plaintiff's request.