A. Of the principal lawsuit of this case, the part demanding the Defendants to “the absence of an obligation to return unjust enrichment and to compensate for losses caused by a tort” is dismissed.

B. On June 18, 2008, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1 related to the registration of ownership transfer based on the trust in the name of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Counterclaim Defendant) who completed the receipt of No. 76315 on August 25, 2008, with respect to the real estate listed in No. 1 List No. 76315 of the Seoul Southern District Court’s Seoul Southern District Court’s receipt of the real estate under the title of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) as to the real estate

(i)The obligation to pay the purchase price does not exist in excess of 391,000,000 won;

See The obligation to cancel the ownership transfer registration, the obligation to cancel or terminate the trust, and the obligation to transfer the ownership due to the cancellation or termination, does not exist;

each confirmation.

C. With respect to the registration of ownership transfer made on February 11, 200 under the name of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Counterclaim Defendant) who completed on May 15, 2000 as the receipt No. 43290 with respect to each one-half portion of the real estate listed in No. 1 Table 2, among the real estate listed in No. 1 Table 52, in implementing the housing reconstruction improvement project for the South-Seoul Hanyang Apartment apartment, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) 2 and 3 of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant);

(i)The settlement balance payment obligation does not exist in excess of 107,000,000 won, respectively;

See The obligation to cancel the ownership transfer registration, the obligation to cancel or terminate the trust, and the obligation to transfer the ownership due to the cancellation or termination, does not exist;

each confirmation.

D. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remaining claims are all dismissed.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's primary counterclaim and the preliminary counterclaim filed in the trial are all dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively by 40% of the total costs of the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

【Main Office】

In addition to the duty to pay KRW 235,00,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”), the Plaintiff’s obligation with respect to the housing reconstruction improvement project in South Seoul Hanyang apartment, confirmed that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have the obligation to cancel the registration of ownership transfer, the obligation to transfer the ownership due to the cancellation or termination of the trust, the obligation to return unjust enrichment, and the obligation to compensate for damages due to the tort, and the obligation to pay KRW 71,00,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) 2 and 3 as stated in the attached Table 1 attached hereto, other than the obligation to pay KRW 71,00,000, the obligation to cancel the registration of ownership transfer, the obligation to return unjust enrichment, and the obligation to compensate for damages due to the tort.

(A) In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Defendants in relation to the Seoul Hanyang apartment reconstruction project did not exist in entirety, and specified the subject of confirmation of non-existence in the first instance trial as above).

[Counterclaim]

In the first place, the Plaintiff completed the cancellation registration procedure on the ground that the trust is terminated on the date of delivery of a copy of the counter-claim of this case as to the registration of each transfer of ownership as to each of the real estate listed in the No. 2 List No. 1, which was completed on August 25, 2008 by the Seoul Southern District Court, the Seoul Southern District Court, Gu Office of Registry No. 76315 on August 25, 2008, and the 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the No. 2 List No. 2, which was completed on May 15, 2008.

Preliminaryly, with respect to each real estate listed in [Attachment 2] No. 1 to Defendant 1, the Plaintiff shall execute the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the termination of trust on the date of delivery of a copy of each of the counterclaim of this case, with respect to each real estate listed in [Attachment 2] No. 2 and 3.

(In the first instance, the Defendant filed a counterclaim)

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's obligation to the defendants in relation to the housing reconstruction project of the Seoul Hanyang apartment in Seoul is confirmed to be nonexistent in all.

A. Status of the parties

(1) Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Plaintiff is a reconstruction improvement project association established for the purpose of implementing the reconstruction project of the Southern Han-gu Seoul Metropolitan City in two parcels outside Geumcheon-

Shed Defendant 1 is the owner of the real estate listed in the No. 1 List among the above apartment units No. 1 (hereinafter “instant first apartment”). Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are the owners of the real estate listed in the No. 1 List No. 2 of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The plaintiff's reconstruction resolution process

(1) On February 6, 1998, the Plaintiff: (a) held an inaugural general meeting on the establishment, etc. of the association; (b) made a resolution on the reconstruction association resolution and the written consent for the implementation of the project; and (c) completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 29, 200 by purchasing 1/2 shares of the instant apartment from the Nonparty, who was the former owner on February 25, 2005, and purchased 1/2 shares of the instant apartment from the former owner on March 29, 205 to the end of January 200, with the consent of 2/3 or more of the sectional owners; and (d) obtained the authorization for the establishment of the reconstruction association from the head of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the first resolution on reconstruction) on February 11, 200 (the first resolution on February 1, 200).

The Plaintiff, from October 2005, newly prepared the form of “the consent to the project implementation plan and the consent to re-building” with the consent of re-building from the sectional owners, and obtained the approval of the project implementation from the head of Geumcheon-gu on May 17, 2006 (the re-building resolution referred to as “the second resolution”), and the Defendants did not consent to the second resolution.

C. Registration of the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer on each apartment of the instant case

(1) On April 11, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted the right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban and Residential Environment Act (hereinafter “Do administration Act”) on the ground that Defendant 1 was expelled from the Plaintiff’s partnership, and filed a lawsuit seeking the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the first apartment of this case (Seoul Southern District Court 2006Gahap6370). Defendant 1 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of expulsion against Defendant 1 (Seoul Southern District Court 2007Gahap24030).

In each of the above cases, on June 18, 2008 between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, the conciliation was concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, stating that “The Plaintiff’s resolution of expulsion of the union members against Defendant 1 is valid, and Defendant 1’s status as the Plaintiff’s union members is recognized. By July 30, 2008, Defendant 1 transferred the instant first apartment to the Plaintiff, and the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the said conciliation is implemented with respect to the said apartment.”

According to the above protocol, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the trust held on August 18, 2008 by the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 76315, August 25, 2008) with respect to the first apartment.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the registration of ownership transfer against defendant 2 and 3 on November 22, 2006 (Seoul Southern District Court 2006Gadan104925) for the trust on February 11, 2000 and received a favorable judgment. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 2007.

Based on the above final judgment, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the trust of the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 43290, May 15, 2008, which was received on February 11, 2000) with respect to the second apartment.

D. Subsequent circumstances

(1) On June 29, 2008, the Plaintiff held a general meeting of the union members on the grounds that Defendant 1 interfered with the progress of the Plaintiff’s union’s business by holding a general meeting of 886 members (including a written resolution). Furthermore, Defendant 1 was rendered a final and conclusive judgment in favor of Defendant 1 on the grounds that Defendant 1 lost his status as non-members by the above expulsion resolution (Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap47657) in a lawsuit filed against the Plaintiff (Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap47657).

Shed Defendant 2 (Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap18642), Defendant 3 (Seoul Administrative Court 2010Guhap47657), and each Plaintiff (hereinafter “Non-members”) filed a lawsuit to confirm the status of non-members. The first resolution was null and void because it did not specifically specify matters concerning the apportionment of rebuilding costs and did not consent to the second resolution.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, Eul's 2, 12, 13, Eul's 2, 5 (including provisional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. As to the legitimacy of the action

(1) As the same right can exist between the same parties depending on the cause of the claim, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a debt, the cause of the debt seeking confirmation must be specifically specified in the purport of the claim. However, the part seeking confirmation of the absence of “the obligation to return unjust enrichment and the obligation to compensate for losses caused by tort” among the purport of the instant claim does not specify the cause of the claim, and thus, the main claim is unlawful.

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the part seeking the confirmation of the absence of the "liability to cancel the registration of ownership" among the claims of this case is unlawful because the cause of the claim is not specified and there is no interest in confirmation. Thus, as seen in the following, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants are liable to pay money equivalent to the market price of each of the above real estate on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the first and second real estate of this case is valid. On the other hand, the Defendants asserted against the Plaintiff that the above obligation to cancel the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff or require the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants. Considering that the above obligation to cancel the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff is invalid, the causes of the above obligation to specify as the cause of the registration are invalid, and as long as there

B. As to the merits

(i) Relevant laws and the articles of incorporation;

According to the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), when implementing a housing reconstruction project, a project implementer may exercise a right to sell the land or buildings of a person who does not consent to the establishment of the association by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 48(1) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (Article 39), and a project implementer shall be obligated to liquidate the land, buildings, or other rights in cash within 150 days from the date following the end of the period for application for parcelling-out or the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out where the land owner fails to apply for parcelling-out or withdraws the application for parcelling-out before the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out,

Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 1 and No. 1, Article 10(5) of the Plaintiff’s articles of association provides that “Article 36 of the Articles of association shall apply mutatis mutandis to the purchase of sectional ownership, etc. of expelled association members,” and Article 36(1) provides that “where a union has notified a sectional owner who does not participate in re-building whether to participate in the re-building but there is no reply within two months, the union shall request the sale of sectional ownership, etc. at the market price.” Article 38(4) provides that “where a union member fails to sell a contract within the period for application for parcelling-out, he/she may deprive the board of representatives of his/her qualification as a union member by a method on behalf of the resolution of the general meeting, and the share shall be in principle a monetary liquidation

• Whether or not the obligation to pay money exists

㈎ 피고 1에 대하여

Considering the above basic facts and the contents of the Urban Improvement Act and the Plaintiff’s Articles of Incorporation, the Plaintiff, upon the conciliation on June 18, 2008, acknowledged the Plaintiff as a partner with respect to Defendant 1, and expelled from the Plaintiff on June 29, 2008. As such, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to claim the sale of the instant first apartment in accordance with Articles 10(5) and 36(1) of the Association’s Articles of Incorporation and Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act.

On the other hand, the highest procedure, which is the premise for exercising the right to demand sale, is not to exercise the right to demand sale immediately against the non-party who did not consent to the establishment of the association, but to again confirm his intention and provide an opportunity to inventory and secure a large number of consenters. Thus, as in this case, if the plaintiff exercises the right to demand sale against the expelled partner, it is not required to make a separate procedure. Thus, as in this case, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the sale price of the apartment of this case under Article 1 of the apartment of this case as the sale price at the time of August 25, 2008, within two months after the expulsion of defendant 1 on June 29, 2008. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20634, Jun. 18, 2008>

Furthermore, the Plaintiff is a person whose market price equivalent to KRW 39,100,000 at the time of August 25, 2008 of the instant apartment 2 apartment is KRW 390,000 (the market price equivalent to the market price at the time of August 25, 2008 of the instant apartment 1, a corporation one appraisal corporation, may be recognized as a result of a request for market price appraisal of the instant apartment 1. Meanwhile, in a lawsuit to confirm the existence of the obligation, the Defendant must make specific arguments and proof as to the cause and amount of the claim, and Defendant 1 did not make specific arguments as to the amount of the purchase price and the delay damages thereof). The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the purchase price to Defendant 1 as to the instant apartment 1 does not exist. Since Defendant 1 is disputing this, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek such confirmation against Defendant 1.

As to this, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the purchase price to Defendant 1 with respect to the instant apartment No. 1, 391 million won, seeking confirmation that the amount calculated by subtracting the aggregate of the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security regarding the instant apartment No. 1,56 million won from the aggregate of the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security regarding the instant apartment No. 391 million won, should not be exceeded KRW 235 million. Thus, the Plaintiff may refuse to pay an amount equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security regarding the instant apartment No. 1, out of the purchase price, upon Defendant 1’s exercise of the right to claim sale, as the contract is established by the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to collateral security, and Defendant 1 bears no registration of the right to collateral security. However, the Plaintiff’s obligation to

㈏ 피고 2, 3에 대하여

According to the above facts, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant 2 and 3 seeking the registration of ownership transfer based on the trust and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the judgment after winning the lawsuit against the defendant 2 and 3. However, since the above defendants' judgment became final and conclusive as to the second apartment of May 15, 2008, the defendant 2 and 3 cannot claim cancellation of the above registration of ownership transfer based on the plaintiff's ground that the above registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff is null and void unless the plaintiff arbitrarily transferred the name of the plaintiff, while the plaintiff cannot claim cancellation of the registration of the trust concerning the second apartment of this case based on the premise that the above defendants are members of the association. However, the above defendants won the trust registration of the second apartment of this case based on the premise that the above defendants are non-members, which resulted in a difference between the above defendants' expulsion and the above defendants' removal from the association members. In light of the above circumstances, the plaintiff is not required to apply the provision of Article 10 (5) and Article 36 (1) and Article 39) of the Urban Improvement Act to the defendant's.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff is a person whose market price equivalent to KRW 214 million at the time of May 15, 2008 of the second apartment of this case (as a result of a request for market price appraisal by one appraisal corporation of the court, the amount equivalent to the market price at the time of May 15, 2008 of the second apartment of this case can be recognized as facts constituting 214 million won. Meanwhile, in a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation, the Defendant must make specific arguments and proof as to the facts of the claim and its amount. Defendant 2 and 3 did not make specific arguments as to the settlement money and its delay damages). The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay settlement money to Defendant 2 and 3 of the second apartment of this case as to the second apartment of this case does not exist more than KRW 214 million,000,000,000 corresponding to the shares of the above Defendants (1/2), and Defendant 2 and 3 of this case's interest in seeking confirmation against the Plaintiff.

As to this, the plaintiff's obligation to pay settlement money to the defendant 2 and 3 with respect to the second apartment of this case is to confirm that the amount of KRW 142 million calculated by deducting the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security regarding the second apartment of this case from the maximum debt amount of KRW 72 million,00,000,000 as to the second apartment of this case, does not exceed KRW 71 million, which corresponds to the shares of the above defendants (1/2). Thus, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's obligation to pay settlement money per se cannot be reduced to the maximum debt amount. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Then, Whether or not the duty of cancellation of ownership transfer and ownership transfer registration exists

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the First and Second Apartments in this case on a conclusive basis, and the trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is naturally terminated, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendants the amount equivalent to the market price of the First and Second Apartments in the sale price or settlement money. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff has no obligation to cancel the registration of ownership transfer or to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants on the grounds of cancellation or termination of the trust contract. Thus, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation against the Defendants.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

The Defendants, on the premise that the Plaintiff is a member, completed the registration of transfer of ownership for the first and second apartment of this case based on the trust under the Plaintiff’s name. The Defendants were no longer able to maintain the trust contract as they became final and conclusive that the Plaintiff is not a member of the Plaintiff. Thus, they claim that the above trust contract is terminated by the service of the duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, and claim for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the cancellation of the trust contract, and the preliminary claim for the registration

As seen earlier, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff as to the First and Second Apartments in the instant case is valid, and the Defendants are only able to receive the amount equivalent to the market price from the Plaintiff as the purchase price or the settlement money, and they cannot seek the restoration of their ownership by asserting the cancellation or termination of the trust contract. Therefore, all of the Defendants’ aforementioned arguments are without merit.

4. Conclusion

① Accordingly, the part of the principal lawsuit of this case, which sought confirmation of the absence of “the duty to return unjust enrichment and the duty to compensate for losses caused by tort,” is dismissed. ② In relation to the registration of the above trust in the name of the Plaintiff as to the First and Second Apartments, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the purchase price or liquidation money against the Defendants does not exist in excess of the above recognized amount. ③ It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to cancel the above trust registration against the Defendants in relation to the above trust registration in the name of the Plaintiff as to the First and Second Apartments, and that the Plaintiff’s obligation to transfer ownership registration on the ground of cancellation or termination of the above trust registration does not exist. ④ The Plaintiff’s remaining principal

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance on the claim of the principal lawsuit in accordance with the plaintiff's specification of the principal lawsuit, shall be modified as above, and the defendants' counterclaim filed in the trial shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Yellowified (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-young

(1) Once a resolution for re-building is adopted, the one who convened the meeting shall, without delay, urge the sectional owners (including their successors) who did not approve the resolution to reply in writing to determine whether he/she will participate in the re-building in accordance with the contents of the resolution. (2) If the sectional owners who were urged under paragraph (1) fails to reply within the period under paragraph (2), they shall be deemed to have reply to the effect that he/she will not participate in the re-building. (4) If the sectional owners who consented to the resolution within the period under paragraph (2) or the sectional owners who were designated to purchase the sectional ownership and right to use the site in accordance with the contents of the re-building (hereinafter referred to as "designated purchaser") within the limit of six months from the date on which the period under paragraph (2) expires, the one-half-year period from the date on which the sectional owners' right to use the site is not open to the effect that the removal of the building would not be made within the limit of six months from the date on which the right to use the site expires.