A. Attached Form 1. The amount of money calculated by 5% per annum from September 13, 2014 to June 9, 2016, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, shall be paid to the Plaintiffs 1 through 57, and 60 listed in the list of Plaintiffs 1 to 57, and attached Table 2. [Attachment Table] 1 to 57, and each of the above amounts shall be paid at the rate of 15% per annum;

B. Attached 1. It shall pay to Plaintiffs 58 and 59 listed in the Plaintiff’s list the amount calculated by applying the respective 20% per annum from September 13, 2014 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Attached 1. The remaining claims of Plaintiffs 1 through 60 as indicated in the list of Plaintiffs, and Attached 1. The claims of Plaintiffs 61 through 110 as indicated in the list of Plaintiffs are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff 1 through 57, and 60 as indicated in the list of Plaintiffs 1 through 57, and 9/10 as indicated in the list of Plaintiffs 1 and the Defendant are borne by the above Plaintiffs, respectively, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs 58, 59 as indicated in the list of Plaintiffs 1 and the Defendant is borne by the Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs 61 through 110 as indicated in the

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On August 27, 2003, the Defendant is a rental business operator (the △△△△△ representative) who operates the housing rental business for the above rental apartment after undergoing a pre-use inspection with respect to the ( Address omitted) ○○○○○○○ primary rental apartment for 802 households, which is a public rental housing unit.

B. Of the above rental apartments, 50 households were converted to sale in lots after two years and six months from the date of usage inspection, and the remaining 752 households were converted to sale in lots at the request of the council of lessees’ representatives on November 12, 2010 after five years from the date of lease obligation.

C. From February 2013 to April 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs entered into each of the following agreements with the Defendant for sale in lots (hereinafter “each of the instant parcelling-out contracts”) with each of the households listed in the [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] among the instant apartment buildings (hereinafter “instant apartment buildings”) and paid all the sales price to the Defendant.

D. The pre-sale conversion price under Article 21 Section 1 of the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11021, Aug. 4, 2011; hereinafter “former Rental Housing Act”) for the instant apartment is as stated in attached Table 2. [Attachment 2] The pre-sale conversion price (i) is as stated in the relevant item.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 (including each number), non-party 1's testimony of the witness, the fact inquiry results conducted on Jan. 28, 2015 at the time of the application of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The Defendant concluded each of the instant sales contracts with the Plaintiffs 1 through 60, 72 through 100, and 104 through 107 (total 93 persons) on the pre-sale conversion price approved by the woodbling market as the parcelling-out price, but each of the instant sales contracts was entered into with each of the above parts as to each of the above additional amounts, since the Defendant entered into an agreement with the said Plaintiffs on the pre-sale conversion price approved by the woodbol market, the lawsuit on the claim for payment of the above additional amounts is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) The non-contentious special agreement provides for the effect of a litigation law, such as waiver of a claim for a trial guaranteed under the Constitution, and is valid only for a situation that may be anticipated at the time of the agreement. In the event that there is any disagreement on the validity or scope thereof, it shall be determined after a reasonable interpretation of the parties’ intention (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da80449, Nov. 28, 2013).

2) According to the evidence Nos. 1-1 to 93, the defendant entered into each of the sales contracts of this case with plaintiffs 1 through 60, 72 through 100, and 104 through 107 as indicated in the plaintiff's list of the plaintiffs Nos. 1-1 to 1-93, it is acknowledged that the defendant agreed to pay 10 million won among the costs of each of the sales contracts of this case with the defendant's expenses for construction in Vietnam, expansion of construction costs, shower and Changho, including the sale price, and not all the demand for repair of defects of this facility. The non-party No. 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's statement to the above part of defense.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendant received each amount exceeding the pre-sale conversion price approved in accordance with the standard under the former Rental Housing Act and subordinate statutes upon entering into each of the instant sales contracts. However, the relevant provisions of the former Rental Housing Act are mandatory and invalid to the extent that exceeds the legitimate pre-sale conversion price regardless of the existence of the right to preferential purchase conversion. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return each of the corresponding amounts as stated in the “Total Amount (3+4)” column, which is the difference between the purchase price and the legitimate pre-sale conversion price, which is the difference between the purchase price and the legitimate pre-sale conversion price.

2) The defendant's assertion

A) It was true that Plaintiff 1 through 60, Plaintiff 72 through 100, and Plaintiff 104 through 107 (all 93 persons) entered in the Plaintiff’s list concluded each of the instant sales contracts with the amount calculated by adding approximately KRW 10 million to the pre-sale conversion price approved by the original wooden City as the selling price. However, this should be excluded from the pre-sale conversion price, since the Defendant received the Defendant’s payment for the extended construction costs and for the shower and Hoho-ho expenses, and as such, the remaining Plaintiffs except Plaintiff 58 and 59 listed in the Plaintiff’s list were not paid the money claimed by the Plaintiffs in addition to the pre-sale conversion price stipulated in each of the instant sales contracts.

B) Even if the Defendant received additional payments on the pre-sale conversion price, the Plaintiffs, who did not have the right to priority purchase conversion, did not have the right to demand the Defendant to comply with the standard for calculating the pre-sale conversion price. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs cannot seek a return thereof to the Defendant pursuant to Article 746

B. Determination as to the claims by Plaintiffs 1 through 60 listed in the Plaintiff’s list

1) Return of unjust enrichment

The legislative purpose of the former Rental Housing Act, including the former Rental Housing Act, is to promote the construction of rental housing and ensure the stability of the residential life of the people. In particular, when imposing various restrictions on rental business operators with various support, the right to preferential purchase conversion of rental housing is recognized after the lapse of the mandatory rental period and the rental business operators are prevented from arbitrarily setting the pre-sale conversion price and the sale of rental housing is achieved at a reasonable pre-sale conversion price. Nevertheless, if a rental business operator interpreted that the pre-sale conversion price is not binding on the pre-sale conversion price, then the rental business operator should arbitrarily set the pre-sale conversion price exceeding the pre-sale conversion price standard after the lapse of the mandatory rental period, and accordingly, it would seriously undermine the legislative purpose of the former Rental Housing Act and its regulations, including the pre-sale conversion price, and thus, it is necessary to prevent the rental business operator from selling the lessee’s right to pre-sale conversion of rental housing and to impose economic profits within the scope of the pre-sale conversion price prescribed by the former Rental Housing Act, in violation of the legislative purpose of the former Rental Housing Act.

In addition to the purport of the entire argument in the testimony of the non-party 1 of the witness, the plaintiff 1 through 60 listed on the plaintiff 1's list among the plaintiffs can be known to the fact that the tenant who had resided in the apartment of this case at the time of the above sale. Thus, if the sale price paid by the defendant, who is the rental business operator of the apartment of this case, exceeds the pre-sale price calculated in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the former Rental Housing Act, the sales contract of this case is null and void to the extent that the excess exceeds the pre-sale price calculated. Barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to return the money

2) Scope of return of unjust enrichment

With respect to each of the households listed in the table Nos. 2. [Attachment 2. [Attachment] Nos. 1 through 60 among the apartment buildings of this case, the above plaintiffs entered into each of the unit sale agreements of this case with the defendant as the unit sale price, and paid all the unit sale price to the defendant. The unit sale conversion price of each of the above units is identical to the unit sale price stated in [Attachment] No. 2. [Attachment] No. 1 to 60 [Attachment], and the unit sale price of each of the above units is identical to the unit sale price stated in the above basic facts. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return each of the corresponding amounts listed in the table No. 1 to 60 in [Attachment] No. 1 to 60 [Attachment] (B-3] (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as " around 10 million won").

Furthermore, the remaining plaintiffs except for plaintiffs 58 and 59 listed in the plaintiff's list among the above plaintiffs 1. 58 and 59 claimed that they paid in cash additional KRW 1 million (Plaintiff 60 million) to the defendant. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above plaintiffs' assertion was actually paid to the defendant with the statements stated in subparagraphs 3-1 through 25, and 9-1 through 36, and the testimony of non-party 1 by the witness and non-party 1 alone, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, the above plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit.

3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

As the Defendant asserts that the pre-sale conversion price should be excluded from the pre-sale conversion price, the above KRW 10 million was paid by the above Plaintiffs as consideration for the construction cost of beer 10 years around September 2003 and the shower / creative expenses, the Defendant’s assertion that the above pre-sale conversion price should be excluded from the pre-sale conversion price. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the above pre-sale conversion price should be excluded from the pre-sale conversion price, including Gap’s statement Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 7, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the witness witness’s testimony that added the whole arguments, and that the Defendant’s assertion that the pre-sale conversion price was made for 0 years after the lapse of 10 years from the pre-sale conversion price, including the Defendant’s assertion that the above pre-sale conversion price was not set for 10 years from the pre-sale conversion price for the above apartment, and that the Defendant’s assertion that the above construction cost was not set separately for the aforementioned part of the Plaintiffs’ aforementioned construction cost.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that the payment of money in excess of the pre-sale conversion price constitutes illegal consideration and thus cannot be claimed. As such, the illegal cause under Article 746 of the Civil Act refers to the case where the underlying act violates good morals and other social order, and even if the act is contrary to the prohibition of law, it does not constitute an illegal cause under Article 746 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da77477, Jan. 13, 201). As seen in the above Paragraph (1) of the former Rental Housing Act, the relevant provision of the former Rental Housing Act is insufficient to impose criminal punishment on a rental business operator who converted a rental house into a pre-sale conversion price in violation of the pre-sale conversion price calculation standard to achieve its legislative purpose, and thus, it is necessary to prohibit the rental business operator from reverting the economic profit determined by the pre-sale conversion price, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the excess portion constitutes illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act that violates good morals and other social order.

C. Attached 1. Determination as to the remaining plaintiffs' claims except for plaintiffs 1 through 60 in the list of plaintiffs

B. As seen in paragraph (1) of the former Rental Housing Act, in restricting the qualifications and method of selecting persons eligible for a lease of a rental house, the former Rental Housing Act grants a lessee a right to preferential purchase conversion of a rental house and sets the standards for calculating the pre-sale conversion price in detail to prevent a lessor from arbitrarily setting the pre-sale conversion price, deprive a lessee of a lessee’s right to preferential purchase conversion, and prevent a third party from taking advantage of market price profit-oriented profit by selling a rental house to a reasonable pre-sale conversion price, it is reasonable to deem that the above Plaintiffs are not entitled to demand a lessor to comply with the standards for calculating the pre-sale conversion price for a rental business entity. Therefore, unless there is no evidence to support that the above Plaintiffs are the right to preferential sale conversion under the former Rental Housing Act and subordinate statutes, each of the above Plaintiffs’ claims are without merit without further review.

D. Sub-committee

The Defendant stated in [Attachment 1] 2. [Attachment 1] 1 to 60 [Attachment 2.3] 1 to 60 [Attachment 1] 2. The Defendant’s “Difference (B-3)” as to each of the pertinent money and each of the above money is reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to repay from September 13, 2014 to 5.0% of the annual interest rate prescribed by the Civil Act until June 9, 2016, and the annual interest rate of 15% from the next day to the date of full payment, which is 1 to 20.5% of the annual interest rate prescribed by the former Special Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2510, Sep. 13, 2014 to 205; Presidential Decree No. 2510, Sep. 25, 2015).

4. Conclusion

If so, the claims of Plaintiffs 1 through 60 listed in the list of Plaintiffs 1 through 60 are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. The claims of Plaintiffs 61 through 110 listed in the list of Plaintiffs 1 are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the Defendant under the proviso of Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the costs of lawsuit of Plaintiffs 58 and 59 listed in the list of Plaintiffs 1.

[Attachment]

Judges Maximum Weather (Presiding Judge) Ethical ethical ethic

(1) Article 21 (Preferential Conversion of Rental Housing for Sale in Lots) (1) In cases where a rental business operator purchases rental housing constructed with funding from the National Housing Fund under Article 60 of the Housing Act or built on a housing site created by a public project after the lapse of the mandatory period for lease after obtaining approval for a project plan under Article 16 of the Housing Act, he/she shall make a conversion for sale in lots to any of the following lessees: