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

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Establishment of a reconstruction association;

"The plaintiffs, the network FF, GG, and HH (hereinafter referred to as "members") invested seven parcels outside 95-274 of the OO-Gu O-si O-si, OO-si, the ownership of the plaintiffs, removed the above-mentioned premises, and then newly build one apartment unit on the sixth floor, and establish a third apartment reconstruction association. Members did not obtain authorization from the competent government office for the establishment of the association."

(1) On March 10, 2004, the members of the JJJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "JJ") and the JJ concluded a contract with each of the members to newly construct one apartment unit on the above land, sell each apartment unit, sell the remaining 11 households in general, and appropriate the loan for the construction cost. (2) After June 2004, the JJ made a joint and several debt, and (1) around June 2004, the JJ made a joint and several debt, and the loan interest shall be repaid in general in advance before settlement. (2) The members of the J agreed to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring house on the above land at the time of completion of the apartment house, and to substitute the collateral for the 11st generation to the general public. The members of the J made a loan on July 30, 2004 and set up the KRJ as a joint and several mortgage loan to the above land.

C. General sale and the disposition of this case

(1) On May 31, 2005, J completed apartment construction, and around that time sold one unit of each household to its members. Meanwhile, eight apartment units have been sold in general, and the signature and seal of the members who are the preservation registration titleholder and the seal of J are written.

(2) At around May 2006, members were supplied with 203, 303, and 601 (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") by the number of buyers in general, and the members were supplied with OOE in return for the payment of loans. (3) On the other hand, the Defendant included 203 and 303 of the sales contract for the apartment of this case in the seller column of the apartment of this case, and included OE in 206 of the global income tax for 200 and 206 of the global income tax for 200 and 206 of the global income tax for 200OE (hereinafter referred to as "OE.200 and 206 of the global income tax for 200, the Plaintiffs included OE in the global income tax for 2006.0 and 206 of the Plaintiff's global income tax for 200 and 200OE.6 of the global income tax for 200.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 11, 13 through 15, and Eul evidence 1 through 8 (including each number), and the result of fact inquiries into our banks by this court, and the purport of the whole arguments.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The J determined that the apartment of this case was sold in general and appropriated for the construction cost, and that the sale price was reverted to the J. In addition, the J was paid out of the sale price in the way of exercising the damage claim against the J as it did not implement the obligation of the loan and cancellation of the right to collateral security. Accordingly, the sale price was reverted to the J. Therefore, the instant disposition that was taken on the premise that it was reverted to the Plaintiffs is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Formation, etc. of the association

The plaintiffs and J are the joint project undertakers who remove existing houses, construct apartment units on their ground, and sell some of the households of apartment units to the members in return for the provision of the project site, while selling the remainder of the general apartment units in return for the provision of the project cost by J to theJ and belong to theJ. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that they constituted a cooperative under the Civil Act for the purpose of joint project on the construction of the instant apartment units (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012). Meanwhile, even if members were to purchase apartment units in accordance with the contract, it is reasonable to view that the cooperative still existed at the time of the receipt of the purchase price.

(2) Reversion of the sale price;

The J corresponds to the managing member who performs the business of an association by selling apartment units in general and repaying loans, and the members are members who acquire apartment units by investing land, etc. However, since the J has not performed their own business and the members have reached repayment of loans, these acts shall be deemed to have performed the role of the managing member for the association. Therefore, the sale price shall be deemed to have been attributed to the association as the property of the association (in accordance with the contract form concluded at the time of general sale, the sale price shall be deemed to have been appropriated for the repayment of loans, and the sale price shall be attributed to theJ according to the contract form, but it shall be deemed that the sale price shall be appropriated for the repayment of loans, but it shall be deemed that the payment is equivalent to the construction price to be paid by the plaintiffs, and that it shall be attributed to the association and the association because the J has acquired the profit by settling the loan after the repayment of the loan).

(3) Scope of revocation

A cooperative is a person operating a joint business under the Civil Act, and the amount of income shall be calculated by deeming the place in which the cooperative operates the place in question as one resident under Article 43 of the Income Tax Act, by deeming the place in which the cooperative operates the place in question as one resident. Therefore, the amount of income shall be calculated by calculating the earnings and differences in expenses acquired by the cooperative operation, and it shall be distributed in proportion to the ratio (or the amount actually distributed)

However, considering the fact that the defendant does not regard the plaintiffs as the person to whom the proceeds from sale belongs, did not calculate the amount of income by the joint business place, divided them into members without deducting expenses, and the plaintiffs claim the amount of global income tax and the interest on loans, etc., the data submitted alone need to calculate the correct amount of income and the comprehensive income tax, and the whole amount of income must be revoked (the defendant should examine expenses, etc., calculate the amount of income in the joint business place, and calculate the amount of income in the joint business place, and notify the plaintiffs

3. Conclusion

Thus, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.