2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,400,000 won with 5% interest per annum from November 3, 2005 to November 11, 2009 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. The plaintiff and the defendant share 20 minutes of the total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The reason why the court should explain this part is as follows: (a) except for the case where Nonparty 1 was changed to Nonparty 1 co-defendant 1 of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the court of first instance; and (b) it is citing this in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. 2.4 billion won for the cooperative agency fee

1) Although the delegation contract for the affairs of the association and the modification agreement for the fee for the agency business of the association (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) should be concluded according to the intent of the Gu association through a resolution of the general meeting of the association members of the association, the Defendant signed the instant agreement regardless of the intent of the Gu association by sealing the seal of the head of the association who was under custody in the lead of the said new apartment construction project and sealing the seal of the head of

2) Even though the instant agreement is effective against the former union, since it is a separate organization that differs from the former union, it cannot be deemed that the instant agreement entered into by the former union is effective against the Plaintiff union as a matter of course. In other words, the entity of the former union is not the same, and the Plaintiff did not succeed to the obligations under the instant agreement of the former union.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff Union is not obliged to pay 2.4 billion won to the Defendant. However, Nonparty 1 of the first instance trial, in collusion with the Defendant, paid 2.4 billion won a cooperative agent fee to the Defendant.

4) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 2.4 billion with the return of unjust enrichment and the delay damages therefor.

B. Part on the claim of KRW 110,000,000 for union operation expenses

1) Although the Plaintiff Union did not have a duty to pay the partnership operating expenses to the Defendant, Nonparty 1 of the first instance co-defendant 1 paid KRW 110 million to the Defendant in collusion with the Defendant.

2) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 110 million and the damages for delay with the return of unjust enrichment.

3. Determination on a claim for KRW 2.4 billion for the cooperative agency fee

A. Status of the Plaintiff Union

In full view of the evidence as mentioned above and the purport of the arguments as a whole, the plaintiff union was newly established pursuant to a separate establishment procedure after the dissolution of the former union and the dissolution of the association was approved, and accordingly a separate association establishment was granted. ② The old union and the plaintiff union are names of the association (the old union is the original association's regional housing association and the plaintiff union is the original association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's total 32). The plaintiff union's association's association's association's association's association's association's union's union's organization (Evidence 6) is composed of 58 articles (Evidence 6). The plaintiff union's association's association's association's association's association's 49 members and 383 members of the plaintiff association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's association's dissolution and dissolution of new association's association's association's association.

B. Whether the Plaintiff Union succeeded to the rights and obligations of the former union under the instant agreement

1) Whether comprehensive succession has been taken

As seen earlier, insofar as the Plaintiff Union is deemed to be a non-corporate body different from that of the former Union, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff Union naturally succeeds to the rights and obligations of the former Union under the agreement of this case without any separate procedure.

2) Whether specific succession is made

A) Next, we examine whether the rights and obligations of the old union based on the instant agreement were specifically succeeded to by the Plaintiff union.

B) The instant agreement explicitly provides (Article 23(1) of the Rules of the Plaintiff Union, unlike the former union, that the Plaintiff Union shall select the Defendant as a business agent and pay an agency fee to the Defendant. Thus, unlike the former union, matters concerning the selection of the business agent is subject to a resolution by the general meeting of the Plaintiff Union. Thus, if the Plaintiff Union succeeds to the rights and obligations of the former union based on the instant agreement, it must undergo a resolution by the general meeting of the Plaintiff Union. There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff succeeded to the obligations under the instant agreement against the Defendant of the former union upon the resolution by the general meeting of the Plaintiff Union. There is no special issue that the Plaintiff union did not specifically state the validity of the instant agreement during the period of its establishment, or in light of the purport of the rules of the Plaintiff Union, which explicitly states the selection of the business agent as the resolution by the general meeting, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff union explicitly ratified the validity of the instant agreement (i.e., the intention of ratification or implied, should be expressed in the form of the general meeting resolution).

C. Sub-decision

1) If so, the instant agreement has no effect on the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff does not have an obligation to pay the Defendant a fee of KRW 2.4 billion. However, the co-defendant 1 of the first instance court, who was the president of the Plaintiff’s partnership, paid the Defendant a fee of KRW 2.4 billion in terms of the partnership agency fee, thereby causing damage

2) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 2.4 billion and the damages for delay on the return of unjust enrichment.

4. Determination as to the claim of KRW 110,000,000 of the operating expenses of the partnership

The fact that the non-party company paid the above KRW 1.10 million to the defendant as the expenses for the operation of the association is as seen above, however, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant used the above KRW 1.10 million without using it for the operation of the association (in full view of the purport of pleading in the statement No. 5, the defendant can be found to have used the above KRW 1.10 million with the office rent, cost of equipment, etc. while operating the association, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have made unjust enrichment. The plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 3, 2005 to November 11, 2009, which is the date of the ruling of the court of first instance, where it is deemed that it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the above obligation to the plaintiff from November 3, 2005 that the above 2.4 billion won and the defendant received the above money from the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since part of the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this, the plaintiff's appeal of this case is partially accepted and the payment of the above money is revoked, and since the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Young-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim U.S.-U.S. type