2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, the Defendant is a reconstruction association consisting of 1,942 members as of December 23, 200 after obtaining authorization for establishment from the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 23, 200 for the purpose of apartment reconstruction on the ground of 657, Gangseo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and the Plaintiffs are members of the association who purchased an apartment unit from the Defendant

B. Around May 2002, the Defendant concluded a contract with Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 on the instant apartment reconstruction project, and agreed to bear the value-added tax to be paid by the said company due to the instant apartment reconstruction project (hereinafter “value-added tax”).

C. On May 6, 2002, the Defendant obtained the approval of the project plan for the reconstruction of the instant apartment from the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. On November 2, 2002, the Defendant held a “general meeting for the management and disposal of the members” on November 2, 2002 and approved the plan for the management and disposal (379 persons, 736 persons present) with the consent of 1,934 members among 1,934 members (hereinafter “the instant management and disposal general meeting”), and the main contents of the instant management and disposal plan are as follows.

○ Calculation of the amount of rights of union members

The price of the previous land and buildings owned by the association members, which are the basis for the management and disposal plan, shall be the average of the values appraised by selecting and evaluating two appraisal corporations, and the amount calculated by dividing the total project cost from the total estimated revenues of the site and constructed facilities after the completion of the project by the total previous value of the association members eligible for parcelling-out shall be determined by multiplying the amount of the right by the percentage of the total amount of the association members eligible for parcelling-out by the previous value of the individual association members, and

(a) Calculation of the estimated expense rate;

The calculation of the estimated proportional rate shall be as follows based on the previous prices of housing sites and construction facilities and on the sales revenue and expenditure of the members:

Estimated proportional rate = [The total estimated amount of sales in lots and building facilities after the completion of the project - the total project cost]/ the total appraised value of the previous land and buildings owned by the members] 】 100

(b) The amount of rights of each member = Previous appraised value ¡¿ estimated expenses rate;

Article 6 (Standards for Sale of Building Facilities, etc.)

6. Where the difference arises between the rights of partners calculated on the basis of the assessed value of previous property invested by the partners and the amount of sale of housing units by the partners after the implementation of the project, the difference shall be paid or paid, and the timing for payment shall be determined by

§ 7. Allocation of equity and Dong, floor, number of houses

1. The allocation of units of multi-family housing to be sold to units shall be by electronic lottery;

3. The balanced allocation of multi-family housing to be sold in units shall be made in accordance with the application for the desired balance of members: Provided, That where there exists any competition of flat types, it shall be allocated as follows:

1) The applications for the usuality of employee houses and rental business operators, and the number of floors, and the allocation of housing units shall be computerized by the number of housing units to the same extent as those of the general members.

2) If there is a competition in the desired competition, the members who wish to take the first priority in the computer lottery will be allocated in the first time (if the first desired figure is below the first desired figure, the number of members who were excluded from the first lottery will be added in the second desired figure, and, if the second and second priority are unable to be allocated by competition, the number of members who were excluded from the first desired figure will be added in the third and fourth desired figure in order.

D. At the time of approval of the above management and disposal plan (draft), the funding management plan was also approved to include the value-added tax in the total project cost.

E. Around the time of the instant management and disposition general meeting, the Defendant sold apartment units to its members by drawing lots of apartment square, Dong, floor, lake, etc. to be sold to its members (hereinafter “instant sales”).

F. From the time of sale of this case to September 29, 2005, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the charge calculated by subtracting their rights from the usual sale price that they bought by themselves.

G. On March 19, 2005, the Defendant held an “special general meeting of partners” (hereinafter “special general meeting of this case”) and approved additional contributions, including the apportionment of expenses approved at the time of the instant management and disposal general meeting with the consent of 930 persons (270 persons in written resolution, 710 persons present), among 1,937 members of the association (hereinafter “special general meeting of this case”).

H. In the event that the value-added tax of this case is not included in the total project cost and the plaintiffs' rights are calculated by calculating the estimated expense rate, and the charges are to be withdrawn after calculating the amount of rights of the plaintiffs, the amount that the plaintiffs paid to the defendant as the charges, which is equivalent to the amount claimed by the plaintiffs, exceeds the above property withdrawn

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap13 through 16, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The resolution of including the value-added tax in the total project cost among the approvals of the management and disposal plan plan of the instant general meeting and the approvals of the disbursement of the total project cost at the above general meeting of the instant general meeting of the management and disposal (hereinafter referred to as the “resolution of the cost sharing”) are related to the sharing of expenses by the association members, so it does not meet the requirement despite the consent of at least 4/5 of the association members, which is a special number of special quorum. The value-added tax of the instant case is imposed only on the size of national housing above the scale of national housing, but it is also required to include it in the total project cost, and thus, it does not maintain equity among the association members and did not have any obligation to bear value-added tax by selling it in lots to all the association members. The contents of the resolution have not been explained or notified to the plaintiffs as at the time of the above general meeting. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to return each claim amount in the separate sheet, which is an amount equivalent to the value-added tax allocated to the defendant.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The decision on the cost sharing of this case is a matter that can be decided by the general quorum. The value-added tax of this case is included in the total revenue estimated for sale in lots, resulting in no change in the estimated cost ratio, and thus, did not affect the amount of the plaintiffs' rights and the charges accordingly. In addition, when the general meeting for the management and disposal of this case approves the management and disposal plan (the plan) at the general meeting for the management and disposal of this case, the average apartment type of the members did not have been determined, and thereafter, the decision on the cost sharing of this case and the payment of the plaintiffs' charges are valid since it maintains the equity among the members by granting equal opportunities to the members including the plaintiffs by

3. Determination

A. Whether the value-added tax of this case was included in the total estimated sales revenue amount

1) In calculating the usual sale price of the reconstruction apartment of this case by comparison method (hereinafter “non-subscam method”), the Defendant determined the sale price by including value-added tax in indirect costs with respect to the square type above national housing size, and reflected the value-added tax as a result, and accordingly, the instant value-added tax was naturally included in the total sales revenue trend, which is the sum of the sale price, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) Rather, as the defendant also recognized, the sale price of the reconstruction apartment in this case was calculated by the comparison method rather than the cost method. (A) The cost method was determined by the comparison method rather than the cost method. (B) The comparison method is not only based on the evaluation criteria of the site cost, (i) the construction cost, (ii) the purchase price of construction costs, (iii) the purchase price of construction costs, and (iv) other indirect costs such as project implementation costs, but also on the basis of the assessment criteria, (ii) the calculation criteria of the entire complex including the location conditions, transportation conditions, residential conditions, the scale of complex, and (iii) the brand of the city construction project, and (ii) the assessment criteria of the entire complex including the location conditions, the number of stories, the location (day, sunshine, view, noise, privacy infringement, etc.) of each household, and it is difficult to prove whether the value-added tax in this case was reflected in the calculation method based on the facts and comparison method that the market factor is considered as the evaluation criteria, but also on the basis of the total revenues in this case.

B. The validity of the instant resolution on sharing of expenses

(1) The instant decision on the cost sharing is that the value-added tax of this case is included in the total project cost. The change in the total project cost leads to a change in the estimated cost ratio, and is related to the amount of rights of the association members and the apportionment of expenses that result in a change in the association members’ contributions in order to consecutive order. Therefore, in order to ensure the equity among the association members whose interests conflict, it is necessary to make a resolution by a majority of at least four-fifths of the association members by applying the quorum of special number at the time of the rebuilding resolution to ensure the equity among the association

(2) As seen earlier, the instant resolution on the sharing of expenses did not meet the above special number of the quorum. Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant at the time of the instant resolution on the sharing of expenses, by including the value-added tax in the total project cost to the association members, including the Plaintiffs, thereby explaining that the cost would be borne by the association members who did not have the obligation to bear value-added tax by selling it in lots below national housing scale, or by not notifying them in advance.

(3) If so, the instant share-sharing resolution was made by: (i) the number of special quorums was not satisfied; (ii) the association members did not notify or explain the contents of the share-sharing; and (iii) the total project cost only included the instant value-added tax to the association members who purchased an apartment building smaller than national housing scale by allowing only the association members who purchased an apartment building exceeding national housing scale to share the value-added tax to be borne by the association members who purchased an apartment building exceeding national housing scale; and (iv) thus, it

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of each claim stated in attached Form 1 and damages for delay from September 30, 2005 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the last payment date of charges, as requested by the plaintiffs.

【Plaintiff List omitted】

Judges Sung Ho-ho (Presiding Judge) Suspension