2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Pursuant to Article 11 of the Housing Act, the Defendant is an association established for the purpose of constructing an apartment of 602 households’ regional housing association (hereinafter “the apartment of the instant association”) at approximately 29,153 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of the instant project (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

On February 9, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to join the partnership (hereinafter “instant agreement”) to purchase the instant partnership apartment No. D, and joined the Defendant.

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 1,00,000,000 on February 3, 2018, and KRW 2,000,000 on February 6, 2018, and KRW 26,80,000 on February 13, 2018, and KRW 11,060,00 on October 27, 2018, respectively.

(Total Amount paid in 40,860,000). (No dispute over the grounds for recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff stated in the complaint the primary claim and the conjunctive claim, but in the case of the cause of the claim, the plaintiff did not set the order of judgment by distinguishing the primary claim from the conjunctive claim, and even if examining the contents, it is difficult to distinguish the primary claim from the conjunctive claim.

Therefore, I would like to describe the plaintiff's cause of claim and its judgment without setting the order of priority.

Article 13 of the Rules of the Defendant’s Voluntary Withdrawal of Partnership (hereinafter “Rules of this case”) prohibits voluntary withdrawal from partnership. However, such prohibition is null and void in violation of Article 11 of the Housing Act that guarantees the right to withdraw from partnership and infringes on the freedom of association guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

Since the plaintiff expressed his intention of voluntary withdrawal to the defendant, the defendant shall return the shares of association members to the plaintiff.

The Defendant cancelled the contract on the grounds of change of circumstances without securing 100% of the ownership of the instant apartment site, and entered into the contract in this case, and thereafter, the aggravation of the financial situation and the rise in the land price.