현금청산금 청구의 소
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 405,406,977 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from November 19, 2016 to September 15, 2017.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 14, 2009, the Defendant was a reconstruction improvement project partnership established with authorization for establishment of a partnership on December 14, 2009 to implement a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) with a project area of 24,036 square meters in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu and D, Seoul, and the Plaintiff owned real estate in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant real estate”) located within the Defendant’s business area.
B. On April 7, 2014, the Defendant received the authorization to implement the reconstruction of this case from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received the application for parcelling-out from the members from June 9, 2014 to August 7, 2014.
The plaintiff, as a member of the defendant, applied for a parcelling-out to the defendant during the above period.
C. On November 17, 2015, the Defendant obtained an administrative disposition plan from the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on November 17, 2015 for the Defendant’s trust on November 17, 2015.
Around June 9, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced that the sales contract be concluded with the Defendant from June 15, 2016 to June 21, 2016.
However, the plaintiff did not conclude a sales contract with the defendant within the above period.
E. On June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff repaid the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate, and on the same day, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security was revoked.
On the other hand, the part of the instant real estate was destroyed on September 29, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 7, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. 1 Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of claim did not conclude a sales contract with the Defendant within the period of conclusion of the sales contract as notified by the Defendant. As such, pursuant to Article 43(4) and (5) of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation, the Defendant passed 150 days after the conclusion date of the sales contract for the real estate price of this case and 412,00,000 won.