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

A. E-building and rearrangement project association (hereinafter “E-building association”) is a project undertaker for a housing reconstruction project that newly constructs an apartment on the land above F and 96 parcels of land, the Plaintiff is an executor of new apartment construction project, and the Defendants are members of E-building association.

B. Around 2001 and 2002, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000, respectively, to the Defendants as moving expenses, and the Defendants agreed to return it to the Plaintiff prior to the rebuilding apartment or commercial building occupancy.

C. A reconstruction project was not properly carried out.

The apartment project site was sold to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "G") on June 17, 2010 after auction.

G completed the apartment around July 201 and completed the registration of ownership preservation on December 30, 201.

G did not recognize the right to purchase the apartment house from E reconstruction Association and its members, and the apartment house 251 households were disposed of (general sale) to third parties until April 2012 and completed the registration of ownership transfer between June 2012.

The Defendants did not move into the apartment or commercial building of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3 through 6 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the event that the plaintiff sought the return of KRW 30,000,000 lent to the moving expenses due to the cause of the claim in this case, the defendants asserted that the above moving expenses were extinguished by the prescription.

Where the parties have determined the period for performance of obligations when uncertain facts have occurred, the period for performance shall be deemed to have come due, as well as when such facts have occurred, and even when such facts are impossible.

G The fact that the members including the defendant et al. did not recognize the right to sell the apartment in this case even after the completion of the apartment in this case and the members of the association such as the defendant et al. did not occupy the apartment in this case are recognized as above.