A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 1,284,660,607 won and 1,268,626,605 won among them with 5% interest per annum from October 14, 2014 to April 10, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 10% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,276,169,368 won and 1,270,323,40 won among them, 200 won with 20% interest rate from April 12, 2014 to 5,845,968 won.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, with respect to the defendant, the part against the defendant ordering payment of KRW 924,454,739 as well as KRW 5% per annum from April 29, 2014 to July 24, 2014, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Scope of the judgment of this court.

At the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought payment of cash settlement money, return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the interest on moving expenses, and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to property tax. The first instance court partly accepted the claim for payment of cash settlement money, and dismissed all the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the interest on moving expenses and the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to property tax. The Defendant only appealed against this claim. Accordingly, the object of the judgment at this court is limited to the claim for payment of cash settlement money.

A. The defendant is a housing reconstruction project partnership established with approval from the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 1, 2007 to implement a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter "the housing reconstruction project of this case") within 31,668 square meters in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the project implementation of the project in this case on October 31, 2007, and the approval for the management and disposal plan was made on January 23, 2008. The plaintiff is the owner of the land and building indicated in the attached list of real estate located in the project in this case (the above building was destroyed on October 2, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case"), and the above building was referred to as the "building in this case").

D. From November 1, 2012 to November 30, 2012, the Defendant publicly announced the conclusion of a contract for sale by setting the period for application for parcelling-out as an association member’s period for parcelling-out, and thereafter extended the period to December 20, 2012. The Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the said period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4-7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out within the period for filing an application for parcelling-out, the Plaintiff acquired the status of a person subject to cash settlement pursuant to Article 47(1)1 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents"). Therefore, the Defendant

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant land and building to the Defendant on November 2, 2007, the Seoul Southern District Court Gangseo-gu Office of Seoul Southern District Court, No. 70377, Oct. 29, 2007, which was based on the trust of October 29, 2007.

2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate, but on 2008, 3, and 30, the lessee completed the relocation and delivered the instant land to the Defendant.

3) The defendant's articles of incorporation

The main contents of the defendant's articles of incorporation related to the settlement of cash and the bearing of maintenance project costs shall be as follows:

Article 7 (Methods of Notifying and Notifying Matters concerning Rights and Obligations) (1) A cooperative shall faithfully notify and publicly announce matters concerning the rights and obligations of its members to its members.Article 10 (Rights and Obligations of Members) (1) A cooperative member shall have the following rights and obligations: 2. Right to request a general meeting to purchase land or a building; 3. Right to attend and speak at a general meeting; 4. Right to elect representatives and right to elect representatives; 5. Right to elect representatives; 6. Right to pay improvement project expenses; settlement money; charges; late payment charges; late payment charges; late payment charges; loss incurred (including delay of interest, delay of contract; 7. Other related Acts and subordinate statutes; 11 (Loss of Members' Qualifications)

(2) The rearrangement project cost under the provisions of paragraph (1) may be imposed after the resolution of the general meeting, and the amount shall be adjusted equally according to the management and disposal plan by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions, such as the location, size, utilization status, environment, etc. of the land, buildings, etc. in the project implementation district.(3) The association may impose an overdue charge on the members who fail to pay the rearrangement project cost within the payment period within the scope of the overdue interest applied by the financial institution, and may entrust the head of the competent Si/Gun with the collection of the rearrangement project cost pursuant to the provisions of Article 61 (4) of the Act.(2) The association may directly conclude an agreement with the financial institution or arrange the members who wish to provide the relocation expenses to provide them by concluding an agreement with the constructor. In this case, the association members who have received the relocation expenses shall provide the land and buildings owned within the project implementation district as security.(3) The association shall, if it fails to do so within the extent of 20 days from the date it has withdrawn the relocation expenses under the provisions of paragraph (2).

The base date for settlement of cash shall be the following day after the completion of the contract period for settlement of cash, and the person subject to settlement of cash shall be paid the settlement money after deducting the costs incurred for the following items.1. The financial costs for settlement of cash 2. overdue interest and the acquisition tax and registration tax pursuant to the transfer of ownership; 3. Where there is a difference between the price of the land or building previously owned and the price of the land or building purchased by the person subject to settlement of land or building, the association shall collect an amount equivalent to the difference (hereinafter referred to as "settlement money") from the person who has purchased the land or building after the date of public announcement of the transfer or pay the settlement money to the person subject to settlement of the land or building: Provided, That in the application of the provisions of paragraph (1), the expenses for the settlement of land or building previously owned by the head of the Si/Gun shall be excluded from the expenses for the assessment of the purchase price of the building and the expenses for the settlement of construction under the provisions of paragraph (2) 36.

(1) Where any partner has failed to pay the liquidation money, the association shall notify the request for payment of the liquidation money at least twice, and entrust the head of a Si/Gun with the collection of the liquidation money and arrears within one month from the final date

4) On October 28, 2007, the defendant entered into a contract for construction with Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the construction contract in this case") (hereinafter referred to as "the construction contract in this case"), and the main contents are as follows.

B. Contract amount: 6. Contract amount: 84,629,181,283 Won Construction Contract Terms and Conditions, Article 4 (Method of Implementation of Projects) 1, Article 4 (Method of Implementation of Projects) 1, and the defendant's business expenses may be leased to the defendant and the defendant's association members. In this case, the defendant and the defendant's association members shall pay the principal and interest pursuant to the provisions of Articles 39 and 40: Provided, That the defendant and the defendant's association members may directly procure the moving expenses and business expenses through a financial institution after consultation with the defendant.Article 7 (Contract Amount) 1) The contract amount to be paid by the defendant to the City Corporation is as follows: Article 16 (Lease of Relocation Expenses) 1)

The measures shall be taken to allow a differential loan, and the interest on the moving expenses shall be taken so that the moving expenses may be additionally leased in consultation with the defendant if necessary: Provided, That the interest on the moving expenses shall be paid monthly by the time of the designation of the moving, and the interest on the moving expenses shall be deposited in the account designated by the lending financial institution every month from the time of the lending by the defendant's association member, and the amount calculated by applying the overdue loan rate to the lending financial institution or the contractor in accordance with the agreement with the lending financial institution when the moving expenses are overdue shall be paid to the lending financial institution.(2) As for the moving expenses (basic and interest) allocated to the household of the union member, the lending financial institution shall borrow from the lending financial institution in the name of the defendant's union member and the lending financial institution shall set the first priority collateral in the property of the union member. If requested by the lending financial institution, the lending financial institution shall establish the first priority collateral in the name of the Si Corporation.

5) Meanwhile, around November 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract to partially modify the instant construction contract with a contractor (hereinafter “instant modified contract”). The main contents are as follows.

Article 17 (Lease of Relocation Expenses, etc.) (1) The defendant shall make a direct financing from the financial institution without guarantee of the construction work from the financial institution selected in consultation with the contractor within the limit specified in the special conditions of the contract for construction work according to the details of existing property rights. (2) The interest on the basic relocation expenses under paragraph (1) shall be paid by the defendant not later than the expiration date of the designation period of the occupancy of the defendant partner or the date of actual occupancy, and the interest on the additional relocation expenses shall be deposited in the account designated by the lending from

The overdue interest rate applied by the overdue interest rate under the agreement with the convergence institution shall be paid to the lending financial institution or the contractor.

6) On March 14, 2008, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 331,60,000 from the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter “National Bank”) as moving expenses. Under the instant construction contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 985,715 per month interest on the said loan to the National Bank of Korea.

7) Meanwhile, according to the instant construction contract, the Defendant assumed the obligation to return the amount equivalent to the interest on the moving expenses of its members to the contractor in the form of including the amount of the interest on the moving expenses, and received a request from the contractor to December 26, 2013 (from March 20, 2008 to November 2013) for payment of KRW 16,023,905,538, including the moving expenses, the interest on the business expenses, etc. from March 20, 2008 to December 26, 2013, which was paid by the contractor on behalf of the Defendant after the instant change contract.

8) The details of interest on the moving expenses paid by the contractor or the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff are as shown in the attached Table of Interest Details. The Defendant paid interest on the moving expenses of the Plaintiff from December 2013 after receiving the request from the contractor.

9) On the other hand, on February 22, 2008, the National Bank set the right to collateral security at KRW 398,00,000 with respect to the instant land and building, using the right to collateral security against the Plaintiff as the secured debt. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid to the National Bank the secured debt amount of KRW 332,36,768 (the principal repaid at KRW 331,60,000 + the interest rate of KRW 76,768 from March 21, 2014 to April 10, 2014). On April 11, 2014, the said right to collateral security was revoked.

10) Results of the request for appraisal by the court of first instance for appraiser D (hereinafter referred to as " appraiser")

A) As of December 2, 2012, the appraiser assessed the entrustment of market price appraisal of the instant land and building based on the court of first instance as follows.

B) As to the instant land, Gangseo-gu Seoul E land, which is similar to the specific use area, utilization status, surrounding environment, etc., was selected as a comparative standard site, and the gap was calculated by comparing and analyzing differences between regional factors and other factors between the instant land and the standard site. Furthermore, as the land located in the vicinity of the instant land, the appraiser adopted the F land of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is similar to the specific use area and utilization status, as a compensation example, and assessed the compensation price of each instant land in consideration of the normal market price level, equity between neighboring compensation preference price and regional price balance. The regional factors - other factors for the instant land - the calculation result, and the amount of compensation therefor are as follows:

Results of the appraisal of the land of this case

A person shall be appointed.

(Independence) Individual factors

A person shall be appointed.

C) On December 21, 2012, the price of the instant building was assessed by applying the cost method computed as at the time of the pricing of the instant building by adding a depreciation to the re-financing cost required for the reconstruction of the building subject to assessment as of December 21, 2012. However, since the said building was already destroyed at the time when an appraiser assessed the instant building, an appraiser assessed the price based on the standard for the previous appraisal report for the formulation of the management and disposal plan (based on October 26, 2007) and the surrounding inquiry, assessment purpose and surrounding environment, example, and various public books, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 14 through 16, the court of first instance's entrustment to the appraiser and the fact inquiry result, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) Occurrence of obligation to pay settlement money

Since the fact that the plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out is recognized as above, the defendant is obligated to pay the liquidation money for the land and buildings of this case to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 47 (1) 1 of the former Urban Improvement Act.

2) Scope of liquidation amount

A) As a result of the appraisal by the court of the first instance on the instant land and building, the fact that the instant land was assessed as KRW 1,184,980,00, and that the instant building was assessed as KRW 85,343,400, as seen earlier.

B) Judgment on the defendant's argument

(1) Summary of the assertion

(A) The land of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a comparative standard place selected by an appraiser, is the so-called Sejong (Ga) land with a road condition rather than the land of this case, which is the vertical (Ga) land.

(A) It is unlawful to view the land as land and the road condition are the same as that of the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “section 1”).

(B) An appraiser selected the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F land as a compensation example and calculated the value of other factors by 1.27%. However, not only did he consider the situation that the proportion ratio according to the management and disposal plan was set at 81.97% due to the aggravation of construction games and the delay of reconstruction projects, but also did not reflect the recent transaction cases where the sales price was set at a price equivalent to 2.6 million won per month (hereinafter referred to as “section 2”).

(C) As a result of the evaluation of the previous assets on the instant land and buildings, the appraised value of the said land and buildings is KRW 1,196,449,050. This is obvious difference between the appraisal result and the appraisal result by an appraiser, and thus, it is not possible to believe the said appraisal result (hereinafter referred to as “third proposal”).

(2) Determination

(A) Determination as to Section 1

According to the results of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance, the appraiser referred to as Scartotos as of 2008, was presumed to fall under the standard price of reference land in 2012 as of the officially announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and announced by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and was presumed to fall under the standard price of reference land in 2012, and the previous appraisal and assessment presumed the standard price as vertical duty. In light of the above circumstances, it is legitimate that the appraiser considers the road conditions of the standard land in comparison with the land in this case as vertical duty, and reflects it from individual factors to 1.00 numerical value

(B) Determination as to Section 2

According to the result of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance, the transaction cases asserted by the Defendant were transacted on December 25, 2013, and there is a considerable interval of time from December 21, 2012 at the pricing point, which is the basis for the appraisal of the appraiser of the instant land, and the appraiser selected and assessed the land of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the compensation preference method in order to select cases comparable with the instant land and under no special circumstances. Therefore, the appraiser’s failure to reflect the above transaction cases claimed by the Defendant cannot be deemed unlawful.

(C) Determination as to the third proposal

The base point of time for assessing the value of the instant land and buildings is December 21, 2012, which is the date following the end of the period of application for parcelling-out, and the appraisal by the court of first instance also at the price point. The appraisal by the court of first instance cannot be deemed unlawful merely on the ground that the appraisal by the court of first instance increases somewhat more than the assessment by the previous assets at the price point, which is much earlier than the previous assets at the price point.

C) Ultimately, in full view of the aforementioned circumstances, it is reasonable to assess the liquidation money for the instant land and buildings at KRW 1,270,323,40 (=1,184,980,000 + + 85,343,400).

(iii) the obligation to pay and the starting point of counting damages for delay;

A) Under Article 47(1)1 and 2 of the former Urban Improvement Act, a project implementer shall liquidate in cash land, buildings, or other rights within 150 days from the date following the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out, in cases where the owners of land, etc. do not apply for parcelling-out under Article 47(1)1 and 2 of the former Urban Improvement Act. The time when an obligation to pay liquidation money arises for owners of land, etc. who did not apply for parcelling-out

The project implementer should be deemed to be the following day after the expiration date of the period of application for sale (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da37780, Oct. 9, 2008, etc.).

B) However, as seen earlier, the Defendant set the period for application for parcelling-out from November 1, 2012 to December 20, 2012, and thus, according to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant’s obligation to pay liquidation money on the instant land and buildings arose on December 21, 2012, which is the following day. Moreover, the Defendant is liable to pay damages for delay on the settlement money from the date 150 days elapsed from that date.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the settlement money of KRW 1,270,323,400 and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 12, 2014, as claimed by the Plaintiff, after the lapse of 150 days from December 21, 2012.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Summary of the defense

1) Defenses to deduct rearrangement project costs

Considering the fact that the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s members, continued the reconstruction improvement project, including the Plaintiff’s members, could have been made before the Plaintiff’s member loses the Plaintiff’s membership, that the reconstruction improvement project is made out of the Plaintiff’s financial resources, and that the obligation to bear the cost of the rearrangement project is naturally constituted as a result of the reconstruction improvement project, and that the disposition for imposition by the resolution of the general meeting is not necessarily required, the Defendant, as the owner of the land, etc. in the instant project area, is obligated to pay the Defendant the cost of the rearrangement project incurred in the instant project pursuant to Articles 20 and 61 of the former Urban Improvement Act and Article 10 of the Articles of Incorporation of the Defendant. Therefore, the maintenance project cost that the Plaintiff spent until

Upon entering into a contract for construction works with a contractor on October 28, 2007, the Defendant: (a) provided that the contractor may obtain a loan for moving expenses from a financial institution in the name of the Defendant’s partner; and (b) provided that the contractor or the Defendant shall pay the interest to the Plaintiff on behalf of the union member. In accordance with the agreement, the Plaintiff acquired the profit equivalent to the interest accrued from the contractor or the Defendant’s payment of the said agreement; and (c) the said agreement is premised on the Plaintiff’s maintaining the status of union member; (d) so long as the Plaintiff lost the status of union member, the benefit equivalent to the interest accrued from the Plaintiff shall be unjust enrichment. In addition, the Defendant received from the contractor the claim for return of unjust enrichment for the amount equivalent to the interest paid by the contractor and the Defendant’s repayment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the interest paid by the contractor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obligated to

3) The National Bank, within the scope of deduction of the maximum debt amount of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, shall complete the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage amount of KRW 398,00,00 with respect to the instant land as the secured debt with respect to the claim against the Plaintiff as the secured debt. Therefore, the maximum debt amount of the said right to collateral security should be deducted from

4) Concurrent performance defenses

The Defendant is obligated to pay the liquidation amount simultaneously with the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the instant land established by the Plaintiff.

B. Determination on the grounds for the claim against the improvement project cost deduction

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 60(1) of the former Act provides, “The cost of a rearrangement project shall be borne by a project implementer, except as otherwise expressly provided for in this Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes.” Article 61(1) provides, “The project implementer may impose and collect the difference between the cost under Article 60(1) and the income accrued in the course of implementing the rearrangement project from the owners of land, etc.” Article 61(3) provides, “the matters necessary for imposing and collecting the charges and late payment charges under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be determined by the articles of association, etc.” Meanwhile, Article 47 of the former Act and the articles of association of the association by failing to apply for parcelling-out or withdrawing the application for parcelling-out shall lose the status of a cooperative member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da81203, Aug. 19, 2010). The legal relationship between the cooperative and its members under the former Act shall not be subject to a resolution or an agreement among its members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20009Da297, supra).

According to the contents, form, system, etc. of the former Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a cooperative which is a project implementer in a housing redevelopment project may impose and collect the difference between the income accrued in the course of implementing the rearrangement project and the rearrangement project pursuant to Article 61(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for its members, including land. However, if a cooperative member becomes a person subject to cash settlement due to meeting the requirements prescribed in Article 47 of the former Act or the articles of association of the cooperative, the cooperative is no longer entitled to impose and collect dues pursuant to Article 61(1) of the former Act on the grounds that it is no longer a member’s status, and it is reasonable to view that a person subject to cash settlement should share a certain portion of the rearrangement project cost of the cooperative that occurred before it loses its member’s status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du1986, Dec. 24, 2014).

2) Determination

However, in this case, the defendant's articles of association has a provision that allows members to share the rearrangement project cost (Articles 10 (1) 5 and 34 (1)), but does not have a provision that allows members to share the rearrangement project cost.

In addition, there is no evidence to deem that there was a resolution of the general meeting of partners or an agreement between the defendant and the members that the person subject to cash settlement should share the rearrangement project cost. Accordingly, according to the above legal principle, the plaintiff who is the person subject to cash settlement cannot be deemed to have the obligation to pay the rearrangement project cost before he loses his membership. Therefore, the defendant'

C. Determination on the set-off claim against the obligation to return interest on moving expenses

1) The Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment

(A) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the evidence adopted earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 13 and Eul evidence Nos. 13 and 5, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the following circumstances, the Plaintiff is obligated to return to the Defendant the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s moving expenses paid by the contractor or the defendant from January 2013 to March 2014, 2014, which was subsequent to the Plaintiff’s loss of membership.

(1) When entering into a loan agreement with the defendant and the contractor with respect to the instant business, the National Bank agreed to lend the desired amount to the members of the instant business as moving expenses within the scope of the lending limit.

(2) According to the above agreement, on March 14, 2008, the National Bank extended a loan of KRW 331,60,000 to the Plaintiff by setting the lending period of KRW 33 years, the interest rate of KRW 1.05%p to the base interest rate (MR). (3) According to Article 16 and Article 17 of the Construction Contract Act, which was modified on October 28, 2007 between the contractor and the contractor, as of October 28, 2007 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Agreement" in Article 16 and Article 17 of the amended Construction Contract Act, the relocation expenses are divided into the basic relocation expenses and the moving expenses, and in the case of the basic relocation expenses, the interest accrued from the date of the designation of the moving expenses until the date of the designation of the moving expenses shall be paid monthly by each member to the lending financial institution on behalf of each member.

(4) The Plaintiff asserts that he was not the subject of the obligation to pay interest on the loan from the beginning, since he only borrowed the basic moving expenses according to the moving expenses agreement. However, according to the evidence No. 13, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the interest at the time of entering into a loan transaction agreement with the National Bank, and there is no evidence to deem that there was an agreement between the contractor and the Defendant to pay the interest, and thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay interest on the National Bank shall be borne by the Plaintiff. However, it is nothing more than the payment by the Defendant and the Si Corporation in lieu of the foregoing moving expenses agreement.

(5) In addition, the moving expenses agreement provides that the defendant shall specify the amount of the lease, the terms and conditions of the repayment, the management of the sale plan, the obligor and the obligor's liability for repayment, etc., and the defendant shall not allow the ownership preservation and the occupancy of the apartment unit sold by the relevant partner if the partner delays the repayment of the moving expenses (Article 17 (5) of the modified contract of this case). Thus, the defendant and the obligor of the Si construction under the above agreement are premised on the fact that the borrower is the member of the association from the lease to the collection of the claim. Accordingly, the above moving expenses agreement shall not apply to the defendant and the obligor of the Si construction under the above agreement on condition that the beneficiary is in the position of the member of the association.

(6) However, since the Plaintiff did not apply to the application for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out, thereby losing its status as the Defendant’s partner on December 21, 2012, the agreement for moving expenses is not applicable thereafter.

(7) From March 20, 208 to November 20, 2013, the Si Treasury paid the Plaintiff’s loan interest (from March 2008 to November 20, 2013) on behalf of the Plaintiff’s national bank as the loan interest accrued from December 20 to March 20, 2014 (from December 20, 2013 to March 20, 2014) (the specific payment details are as stated in the attached loan interest details).

(8) Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing circumstances, the Plaintiff obtained benefits from paying the Plaintiff’s moving expenses on behalf of the Plaintiff, thereby releasing the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay interest owed by the Plaintiff to the National Bank. However, the aforementioned arrangement does not apply to the Plaintiff from December 21, 2012, when the Plaintiff lost the Plaintiff’s membership. As such, the Plaintiff was obligated to return the amount equivalent to the interest accrued by the Plaintiff from January 2013 to March 2014, since there was no legal ground for the benefits equivalent to the interest accrued by the Plaintiff from January 2013 to March 2014.

B) Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 17-1 and No. 17-2, on August 14, 2014, the Si Corporation transferred to the Defendant the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 84,601,525 (the substitute payment from March 20, 2008 to December 26, 2013) of the loan interest on the relocation expenses to the Plaintiff of the Si Corporation, and notified the Plaintiff thereof and reached the Plaintiff on August 18, 2014.

C) The Defendant asserts to the effect that not only the aforementioned unjust enrichment return claim but also the damages for delay claim were taken over from the contractor. However, such damages for delay claim is not assigned with the principal claim as a matter of course unless the contractor expresses his/her intention to transfer the portion of the claim separately from the original claim. However, in this case, there is no evidence to support the fact that the contractor transferred such damages for delay to the contractor, and thus, this part of the Defendant’

D) In addition, the Defendant asserts set-off of all the claims acquired from the contractor, i.e., the interest that was paid by the contractor from March 20, 2008 to December 26, 2013. However, as seen above, the part of the interest that the Plaintiff is liable to return unjust enrichment is the part that was paid by the contractor on or after December 21, 2012 when it lost its membership status, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the amount equivalent to the interest that the contractor paid before the set-off is an automatic claim is without merit.

(ii)for offset appropriation;

A) The part of the interest paid by the Defendant from December 2, 2013 to March 2014 (hereinafter “the first set-off”).

The declaration of intent of set-off is extinguished when each obligation is set-off (Article 493(2) of the Civil Act), so that both parties’ obligation is due (Article 493(2) of the Civil Act); however, it is possible to set-off claims without a fixed time limit, and even if the time limit has not yet arrived, the obligor may waive the benefit of the time limit and set-off against him/her. As such, in the case of multiple claims, it is not separately required that the time limit exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7018, Jul. 28, 2011).

In the instant case, the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 1,151,060 as interest on the Plaintiff’s moving expenses on December 20, 2013, KRW 1,188,490 on January 20, 2014, KRW 1,188,490 on February 20, 2014, KRW 1,188,490 on March 20, and KRW 1,073,475 on March 20, 2014, KRW 4,601,515 on each of the above claims was recognized as above. Furthermore, the fact that the Defendant served on the Plaintiff on the same day of the preparatory document as of April 28, 2014, stating the Defendant’s declaration of set off each of the above claims, was clearly stated in the record that the Defendant’s claim for unjust enrichment interest accrued from the Defendant’s moving expenses to the date of maturity of 201,214,214, respectively, can be viewed as the Defendant’s claim for redemption of each claim 2014.

Therefore, if such loan interest and payment date are set off on an equal amount as set-off day, the Plaintiff’s settlement money claim amounting to KRW 1,270,323,40 is set-off; KRW 1,151,060 on December 20, 2013; KRW 1,188,490 on January 20, 2014; KRW 188,490 on February 1, 2014; KRW 1,188,490 on March 20, 2014; KRW 1,073,475 on March 20, 2014; KRW 1,265,721,85 on March 20, 2014; KRW 1,270,323,400, KRW 1501, KRW 185,081, KRW 1685 on the basis of the last set-off date; the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s settlement money claim amount to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant's above claim for return of unjust enrichment is extinguished immediately from the amount equal to the settlement money claim whenever the defendant pays the moving expenses on behalf of the plaintiff, regardless of whether the plaintiff is the bona fide or malicious beneficiary due to the above offset, and there is no room for damages for delay. Thus, the defendant's argument that damages for delay on the claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case should be offset against the plaintiff's bad faith beneficiary

However, the judgment of the first instance court, unlike the first set-off day, judged as of April 28, 2014 as of the first set-off day, and determined as of April 28, 2014, as well as KRW 4,655,082, including the principal of loans and interest paid by the Defendant on behalf of him/her until April 28, 2014, including damages for delay from April 28, 2014, up to the damages for delay until April 28, 2014, with automatic bonds as of the Plaintiff’s liquidation obligation until the date of set-off as of the first set-off, shall be deemed as the damages for delay from April 12, 2014 to April 28, 2014 and the principal amount of KRW 1,268,626,605, which was set off against the Defendant’s principal amount of the liquidation obligation and the damages for delay from April 29, 2014 to the Defendant’s disadvantage.

Therefore, in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, the defendant shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the principal of the liquidation claim in the amount of KRW 1,268,626,605 and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from April 29, 2014, as in the first instance judgment.

B) A set-off of interest from January 201 to November 201, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “second-off”) paid by the City Corporation.

On January 21, 2013, the Si Corporation transferred 1,24,817 won as interest on the Plaintiff’s moving expenses, 20.20, 1,244,817 won on February 20, 2013, 120,716 won on March 20, 2013, 239, 184 won on April 22, 2013, 2013, 1,19,210 won on May 20, 2013, 439, 710 won on June 4, 2013, 10, 74, 76 won on June 20, 2013, 13, 300 won on the Plaintiff’s automatic credit return, 13.15 won on June 1, 2017, 203, 13, 2013, 13.6.19, 203

However, as seen above, in the case of the Plaintiff’s claim for liquidation money, which is a passive claim, the Defendant, the obligor, may waive and set off the benefit of time. Since the Defendant’s claim for liquidation money, which is an automatic claim, is a claim for return of unjust enrichment and for which the maturity is not fixed, it may be set off as of October 13, 2014 when the Defendant acquired the claim and received the notice of transfer from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, as above, the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal and damages for delay remaining after the first set-off and the Defendant’s claim for the amount of money transferred to the Defendant on October 13, 2014 are set-off as the set-off date and appropriated as follows.

First, the Plaintiff’s remaining claims as of the set-off date are KRW 1,268,626,605 and KRW 29,195,790 per annum from April 29, 2014 to October 13, 2014 (i.e., KRW 1,268,626,605 x 168 days/365 x 0.05 x below KRW 0.05 x below KRW 13,161,788 x below the above delay damages). Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s remaining claims after the second set-off are insufficient to fully repay the above delay damages, and thus, they are extinguished within the same amount as the delay damages in accordance with the legal principles of the set-off appropriation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claims after the second set-off are 1,268,626,605 won as of the date of set-off and 16,034 won (=29,195,700 won);

C) Therefore, the defendant's defense of offsetting this part is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

D. Determination on the defenses against the maximum amount of debt regarding the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage and the simultaneous performance defense

1) In cases where a project implementer bears the obligation to pay liquidation money to a landowner, such as land, etc. under Article 47 of the former Act, in principle, the owner of land, etc. bears the obligation to transfer ownership of land, etc. to the project implementer without any restriction on rights, and in principle, the obligation to transfer ownership without any restriction on rights and the obligation to pay liquidation money to the project implementer is in the simultaneous performance relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da37780, Oct. 9, 20

2) On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant land and building to the National Bank. Accordingly, the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security was cancelled on April 11, 2014. On November 2, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment on the instant land under the name of the Defendant and delivered the instant land to the Defendant on March 30, 208.

3) Therefore, according to the above legal principles, the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage was cancelled, and the registration of the ownership transfer was completed due to the trust in the name of the defendant, and as long as the land in this case was delivered to the defendant, the defendant's defense and the simultaneous performance defense are without merit

E. Sub-committee

Ultimately, after the second set-off appropriation, the Defendant has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,284,660,60,607 out of the settlement money claim (i.e., the principal of the settlement money claim 1,268,626,605 + KRW 16,034,02 in the balance of delay damages until October 13, 2014) and the principal of the settlement money claim 1,268,626,605 in the amount of the principal of the settlement money claim 1,268,605 in the amount of the principal of the settlement money claim 1,268,626,605 in the amount of the second set-off from October 14, 2014 to April 10, 2015, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no ground. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be accepted in part of the defendant's appeal and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above. It is so decided as per

Judges Nown Korea

Judge Lee Ro-man

The claim for return of unjust enrichment against the borrower for relocation expenses has already been set off in writing.

Therefore, this can be seen as an expression of intent by the defendant to waive the benefit of the above claim for liquidation money.

2) As to the interest portion paid by the Si Treasury from the reply dated 16, 2013 and the preparatory documents dated October 18, 2013

Although there was a defense for set-off, this is an automatic claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff by the contractor who is not the defendant.

Korea-U.S.C. 201

The answer for set-off is made on October 7, 2014.