The defendant shall pay 81,50,000 won to the plaintiff (appointed party) and 2 each of the above amounts and 5% per annum from December 10, 2006 to September 12, 2007; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 81,500,000 won per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and 5% per annum from January 4, 2007 to September 12, 207 to each of the above amounts; and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed 20% interest per annum on each of the above amounts of KRW 81,500,000 and each of the above amounts of KRW 20% interest per annum from December 10, 2006 to the full payment date, KRW 81,50,000 interest per annum on each of the above amounts of KRW 81,50,000 and each of the above amounts of KRW 20% interest per annum from January 4, 2007 to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim shall be dismissed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-4:

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed 2 are the holders of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1, and the Appointed 3 and 4 are the owners of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Table 2, who are the reconstruction association’s members. The Plaintiff and the Appointed 2 were the owners of 1/2 shares of the real estate listed in the attached Table 2, and the Plaintiff and the Appointed 2 completed the ownership transfer registration procedure in the Defendant on the grounds of each trust on November 7, 2005 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Table 1.

B. After that, the plaintiff and the designated parties have made an application for parcelling-out to the defendant, and under consultation with the defendant, the plaintiff and the designated parties 2 shall withdraw the application for parcelling-out on July 13, 2006, 3 and 4 August 7, 2006, respectively, and under Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents and Article 48 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the defendant, who is the project implementer, has decided to liquidate in cash the value of the previous assets as of

(c) the assessed value of the previous assets of each real estate listed in the separate sheet as of the date of notification of authorization for project implementation shall be KRW 163,000,000;

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 81,50,000 won (163,000,000 won x 1/2 shares) and each of the above money to the plaintiff (appointed parties) and the appointed parties 2 for the rate of 81,50,000 won (163,00,000 won x 1/2 shares x 150) and damages for delay from the date of withdrawal of the application for parcelling-out under Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents until September 12, 2007, which is the delivery date of a copy of complaint from January 4, 2007, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 200 per annum as provided for in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The assertion

The defendant asserts that there was no agreement on the date of payment in cash settlement with the plaintiff and the designated parties, and even if it is not so, it is possible to execute cash settlement only by the resolution of the defendant's general meeting of management and disposal, as well as by the defendant, since there is no funds at all, the plaintiff's request cannot be complied

B. Determination

According to Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, a project implementer shall liquidate in cash land, buildings, or other rights within 150 days from the date of falling under the case where the owner of land, etc. withdraws the application for parcelling-out, according to the procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree. The defendant is obligated to liquidate in cash within 150 days from the date of withdrawal of the application for parcelling-out under the above provisions. Thus, the defendant's above assertion that there was no agreement on

In addition, we cannot accept the defendant's above assertion as it is not a legal ground to block the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the execution of cash payment is possible to the plaintiff or the defendant's current funds are not sufficient.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. Since the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognized amount among the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, it is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List]

Judges Temporary rules (Presiding Judge)