2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(a) Contract agreement between the defendant Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin and land rearrangement association;

1) On January 28, 1999, the Defendant Jin-gu Seoul Central District Court (Seoul District Court 2007Hahap68, Apr. 25, 2008; hereinafter “Seoul Central District Court”) set the land readjustment project construction cost of KRW 100,803,926,00, and the construction period of construction from Jan. 29, 199 to Aug. 12, 2003, the construction period of construction was changed to August 13, 2007.

2) In accordance with the agreement to pay the construction cost as a matter of principle in the above contract, the Defendant Union changed the name of the buyer on the trade ledger of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, which is equivalent to the above construction cost, from November 1, 1999 to Pyeongtaek Chang-si, the equivalent of 316,530 square meters.

(b) Public announcement of the recruitment of lessees of deliberation proposals;

On March 2001, Pyeongtaek Chang-gu was provided with funds from the National Housing Fund and published a tenant recruitment notice on the aggregate of 3,152 households with the following terms and conditions as to the 746 units of the first apartment of Pyeongtaek Chang-gu (hereinafter “the first apartment”), the second apartment of Pyeongtaek Chang-gu (hereinafter “the second apartment”), the 1,579 units of the second apartment of Pyeongtaek Chang-gu (hereinafter “the third apartment”) and the third apartment of Pyeongtaek Chang-gu (hereinafter “the third apartment”), and the 827 units of the first,27 units of the first,2, and 3,152 units of the apartment.

○ Time of conversion for sale in lots (lease period): Five years from the first day of the month following the month in which the date of initial designation of occupancy ends;

Standards for calculation of 00-sale price for sale in lots: Construction cost under the Ministry of Construction and Transportation (Guidelines for Construction and Management of Public Rental Housing) (=The housing price at the time of the public announcement of invitation of residents + interest on own funds during the rental period + Depreciation cost) and the average appraisal price shall not exceed the amount obtained by deducting depreciation costs during the rental period from the price of the relevant house calculated at the time of conversion in lots based on construction costs

00. Collection of deposit: A lessee may obtain the fixed date prescribed in Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act after entering into a lease contract, and there is a preferential right to payment of deposit.

C. Lease contract between the plaintiffs and Pyeongtaek-si

The Plaintiffs (Plaintiff 154, Plaintiff 154, Plaintiff 243 succeeded to the deceased Nonparty 2, Plaintiff 244, Plaintiff 245, Plaintiff 246, and Plaintiff 247, respectively. In the case of the above Plaintiffs, the deceased Nonparty 3 and Plaintiff 374 refers to the deceased. In addition, Plaintiff 35 purchased the second apartment ○○○○○○○ △△△△△△△△△△△, Plaintiff 271 from Nonparty 7 who succeeded to the deceased Nonparty 6, and Plaintiff 5 and the deceased Nonparty 6 in the case of the above Plaintiffs, without distinguishing the above cases from the deceased Nonparty 5 and the deceased Nonparty 6 in the case of the above Plaintiffs. In the case of the above, the housing of this case, the housing of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) purchased the housing of this case after the lease of each of the second apartment 2 attached Table “the housing of this case”).

The security deposit paid by the plaintiffs to Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter "the security deposit of this case") is the money stated in the corresponding column of "contract deposit" among "contract sale price" in the same Table.

(d) A trust deed between flat land construction and Korean Land Trust; and

On May 30, 2003, Pyeongtaek Chang-gu entered into a real estate management trust agreement on the size of 68,903 square meters among the 126 block 1-1 lot lot large 69,936 square meters within the Jindo-gu District, which is a land trust with Korea, and completed the registration of change in the name on the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay regarding the second apartment under the name of Korea land trust for the second apartment under the name of Korea. The main content of the above trust agreement is as follows.

○ The purpose of the instant trust contract is to manage and preserve only the ownership of the trusted real estate.

○ The beneficiary of the trust contract of this case is a case in common.

○ The lease and the maintenance and management activities for the trust real estate other than the preservation and management of ownership shall be managed under the responsibility of the beneficiary.

The trust principal shall be the rental deposit, the property acquired by subrogation of the trust real estate in custody of the trust real estate, and other equivalent property, and the trust profits shall be the rental fee and other equivalents accruing from the trust real estate.

(e) A pledge agreement on the trust right to benefit;

Defendant HK Savings Bank (hereinafter “Defendant HK Savings Bank”), Solomon Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Solomon Savings Bank”), bankrupt debtor, Hylo Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Savings Bank”), bankruptcy debtor debtor, Samlo Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Slolomon Savings Bank”), Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Slolomat Savings Bank”), Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Slomat Savings Bank”), and Plolototo Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Same Land”) concluded a pledge agreement with respect to the right to benefit of land trust with respect to the original and all other profits under the instant trust agreement, the beneficiary of which under the instant trust agreement, is against Korea Land Trust, and obtained the consent of Korea Land Trust (hereinafter “instant pledgee”).

The defendant HK Savings Bank of 10.4 billion won on March 23, 2004, 111.4 billion won on September 15, 2005, Solomon Savings Bank of 11.4 billion won on September 15, 2005, Solomon Savings Bank of 2nd priority in the limit of the date of the preceding pledgees contained in the main sentence, the defendant HK Savings Bank of 1.4 billion won on September 30, 2006, 3rd priority in the defendant's same land of 4th priority in the defendant's same land of 5 billion won on June 30, 2006. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19514, Aug. 28, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 19500, Jun. 30, 2006>

(f) The bankruptcy of flattoo;

The construction work was performed until November 2006, and the construction work was suspended and insolvent after December 27, 2006 at the rate of work 74.791%. On April 25, 2008, the construction work was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2007Hahap68, and Defendant Pyeongtaek Chang-si was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy.

(g) Disposition of approval for conversion for sale in lots by the head of Ulsan Metropolitan Government;

1) On June 2008, the council of lessees’ representatives of the instant apartment filed an application for the conversion of the sale of rental housing with the head of Ulsan-do office, and on July 4, 2008, the head of Ulsan-do office issued a disposition to approve the conversion of the sale of rental housing with the unit selling price of 117,038,571 won for the unit selling price of 1,294 households for the unit selling unit of 117,038,571 won for exclusive use and 71.547 square meters for exclusive use (28 square meters) 71.57 square meters for unit selling price for the unit selling unit of the instant apartment at 10,877,283 won for the unit selling unit (the pre-sale conversion price set forth in the above approved disposition

2) The Defendant trustee in bankruptcy filed a lawsuit against the North Korean head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, seeking revocation of the above approval for conversion for sale in lots, but on February 18, 2009, the claim was dismissed (Ulsan District Court 2008Guhap2198), and filed an appeal against this (Ulsan District Court 2008Guhap2198), but the above judgment became final and conclusive by withdrawing an appeal on March 31, 2009 ( Busan High Court 2009Nu1891).

(h) Agreement on conversion for sale in lots.

1) On January 21, 2010, the representatives’ conference of lessees of the second apartment complex, the defendant bankruptcy trustee, the Korea Land Trust, and the pledge right holders of this case agreed on the conversion of the second apartment complex into parcelling-out (hereinafter “instant conversion into parcelling-out agreement”). In the instant conversion into parcelling-out agreement, in the case of 32 square meters with the agreement for conversion into parcelling-out in lots (hereinafter “instant conversion into parcelling-out agreement”), the lessee is paid 115,00,000 won in the case of 28 square meters (the price of this case’s conversion into parcelling-out agreement is 14,361,429,429, 122,717 higher than the price of the instant conversion into parcelling-out agreement), and the lessee is entitled to deducts the rental deposit that the lessee paid to Pyeongtaek Chang-si. The main contents of the instant conversion into parcelling-out agreement including this are as follows.

Article 1 (Facts citing by Parties) Parties to the instant agreement for conversion into sale in lots shall refer to the following facts without dispute:

① The fact that the instant agreement for conversion for sale in lots was agreed with the parties to a legal relationship arising from conversion for sale in lots under the Rental Housing Act with respect to a household which agreed to the agreement for conversion for sale in lots among the lessees of the instant apartment.

Article 2 (Opening of Procedure for Parcelling-Out Conversion and Rights and Obligations of the Parties) The Parties agree that the procedure for the conversion of the apartment in this case, in addition to the detailed and detailed matters in the instant agreement for conversion into parcelling-out, shall be as follows:

① The Defendant trustee in bankruptcy shall implement the procedure for conversion for sale in lots after receiving a written agreement for conversion for sale in lots from a lessee who has filed an application for conversion for sale in lots of the instant apartment: Provided, That the conversion for sale in lots under the instant agreement shall not be allowed to inquire whether he

(1) The defendant bankruptcy trustee shall settle the amount to be distributed to the pledge holders of this case as of the last day of each month and pay it by the 25th day of the following month in accordance with the agreement of this case.

(2) The lessees shall pay the conversion price for sale in lots stipulated in the agreement of this case to the defendant bankruptcy trustee, and receive the conversion price for the exclusive ownership of the apartment of this case, and with respect to the part of land which is the object of the site ownership, the defendant bankruptcy trustee and the Korea Land Trust shall request the defendant partnership to change the name of ownership on the ledger of the land recompense for development outlay, but the right to the site that corresponds to each exclusive ownership shall be secured by the lessees

(2) The lessees shall bear the specific implementation of the instant agreement, the implementation of the procedures for conversion for sale in lots prescribed by the Rental Housing Act, and all the expenses incidental thereto within the limit of the amount agreed for sale in lots

(3) The Korea Land Trust shall be deemed to have settled all the rights and obligations of the defendant bankruptcy trustee, lessee, and pledgee of this case by implementing the procedures for ownership transfer registration and the change of ownership on the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay under the provisions of this Act.

(4) The right holders of this case shall be deemed to have received the amount as stipulated in Article 4(5) of the Agreement from the defendant bankruptcy trustee to the defendant bankruptcy trustee, and all legal relations arising out of the agreement made with the defendant bankruptcy trustee have been settled and settled. The claims remaining after the appropriation of the above claims are recognized as bankruptcy claims, and the claims remaining after the appropriation of the above claims shall be accepted as bankruptcy claims, and the ownership transfer to the defendant bankruptcy trustee in the land trust and the performance of the obligation of change of ownership on the register of the land development recompense

(4) The repayment amount to be paid by the pledge holders of this case under the agreement of this case shall be calculated by dividing solely the ratio of the secured debt amount to the secured debt amount in the order of pledge establishment.

Article 3 (Agreement on Parcelling-Out Conversion)

(1) Agreements that a lessee shall pay to the defendant trustee in bankruptcy to obtain conversion for sale in lots prescribed by the Rental Housing Act shall be en bloc without distinction by buildings and floors, as follows:

The agreement for conversion into sale in lots (won) 84.532 square meters (32 square meters) contained in the main text shall be 115,000,000 square meters (28 square meters) 131,400,5457 square meters (28 square meters) 115,00,000

(2) lessees shall enter into a contract for conversion for sale in lots with the defendant trustee in bankruptcy, and deposit the amount obtained by deducting the amount prescribed in Article 4 (1) and (2) from the amount agreed for conversion in lots in the account of deposit in the

Article 4 (Contents of Appropriation for Expenditure of Agreement on Conversion for Sale in Lots) The amount of agreement for sale in lots paid by lessees pursuant to Article 3(1) shall be appropriated in the following order, and the amount shall be disbursed with permission for the return of deposit money from the Seoul Central District Court Bankruptcy Division of the Seoul Central District Court on the deposit money for the bankrupt estate whenever each expenditure factor occurs: Provided, That the amount of money appropriated for the land price under paragraph (4) below shall be transferred from the deposit account of the bankrupt estate to the joint account opened under the joint name between the representative meeting and the defendant association if the council of lessees and the defendant association agree to do so within the extent not contrary to the order of appropriation expenses under this provision:

① Repayment of loans from the National Housing Fund with regard to the apartment of this case: Provided, That the interest accrued after November 1, 2009, among the interest accrued on the loans from the said Fund, shall be borne by the lessee separately from the pre-sale agreement under Article 3 (1).

(2) A lessee shall repay a claim for refund of a rental deposit held by the lessor.

(3) The amount indicated in the following table to cover the repayment of estate claims, such as tax claims of the bankrupt estate, and the operating expenses of the foundation:

2,219,400 square meters (28 square meters) 2,219,40 71.5457 square meters (28 square meters) 1,877,900

(4) The amount calculated by dividing the contribution of construction expenses necessary for the construction and completion of the project in proportion to the ratio of the portion of land which is the object of site ownership of the apartment house in this case among the total project area under the above land readjustment project by each household subject to conversion for sale in lots and

Amount of 84.532㎡ (32 square meters) contained in the main sentence (28 square meters) 6,180,000 71.5457 square meters (28 square meters) 5,410,000

(5) The remainder remaining after making a prior appropriation from the amount agreed for sale in lots in the order under paragraphs (1) through (4) shall be appropriated for the repayment of the secured claim of the above pledge held by the pledgee with respect to Pyeongtaek Land.

2) On January 22, 2010, the representatives’ conference of lessees of the second apartment complex and the Defendant Union agreed to deposit the land ownership following the conversion of the apartment complex into the sale of the second apartment complex with the financial institution “32 square-type 6,180,000 won (3,910,000 won of the site agreement paid by the representatives’ conference, and 2,270,000 won paid by the pledgee of this case) and 28 square-type 5,410,000 won (3,420,000 won of the site agreement paid by the representatives’ conference of lessees’ representatives, and 1,90,000 won paid by the pledgee of this case)” (hereinafter “instant site ownership agreement”).

I. Conclusion of sale contract by the plaintiffs

1) According to the instant agreement, the Plaintiffs concluded a sale and purchase contract for sale in lots, individually with Defendant bankruptcy trustee, for the purchase price of the instant housing as the purchase price (hereinafter “instant sale and purchase contract”). The Plaintiffs and Defendant bankruptcy trustee substituted the instant lease deposit as the instant lease deposit, and the remainder as the repayment of the obligations to the National Housing Fund accepted by the Plaintiffs, and determined the remainder as the intermediate payment. The Plaintiffs paid the said intermediate payment to the trustee in bankruptcy, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant housing after the Plaintiffs repaid the obligations to the National Housing Fund, which is the remainder, or obtained a substitute loan.

2) Meanwhile, since around 2011, the Defendant Union demanded that the lessee pay the land price separately, the Plaintiff 8 (the original trial: Plaintiff 3), 9 (the original trial: Plaintiff 8), 16 (the original trial), 20, 91, 107, 116 (the original trial: Plaintiff 65), 229, 253 (the original trial: Plaintiff 145), 259, 262 (the original trial: Plaintiff 151), 315, 390 (the original trial: Plaintiff 217), and Plaintiff 402 (the original trial: Plaintiff 223), Plaintiff 20, 259, 262 (the first trial: Plaintiff 151), 260, 390 (the first trial: Plaintiff 16, 10, 200, and 225, 239, 250, 250, 2639, 250, and 251.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, 13, and 14 (including branch numbers for those with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendants' assertion

The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful on the grounds that the Plaintiffs did not reach an agreement on the re-sale agreement in this case.

B. Determination

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, Article 5 of the agreement on conversion for sale in lots of this case is recognized as the fact that "any legal relationship between the parties to this case shall be deemed to have been resolved and settled due to the implementation of this agreement, and any civil and criminal right shall not thereafter be asserted."

However, even if the above written action extends to the plaintiffs, as seen thereafter, the sales contract of this case, which set the agreement for conversion for sale in lots, as the purchase price, is null and void to the extent that it exceeds the price approved for conversion for sale in lots in this case due to the violation of the mandatory law, and thus, the agreement to refrain from claiming such invalidation through judicial remedies, such as litigation, is also null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da18969, Feb. 14, 2008; 2009Da50308, Jul. 15, 2010). Accordingly, the above main defense of the defendants cannot be accepted.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the instant sales contract concluded with the agreement amount for sale conversion exceeding the standard for calculation of pre-sale conversion price under the Rental Housing Act, which is a mandatory law, is null and void within the extent exceeding the standard for calculation of pre-sale conversion price, the Defendants unjustly obtained each of the amounts exceeding the approved price for sale conversion from the instant agreement amount for sale conversion.

In addition, it is invalid against Article 20 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings, which is a mandatory law prohibiting a separate disposition of section for exclusive use and right to use site, that the Defendant Union received land price directly from the Plaintiffs who separately paid the land price. Thus, the Defendant Union made unjust enrichment from the total amount of the price received as above.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return to the Plaintiffs (including the case where a claim for return of unjust enrichment has been comprehensively succeeded or specially succeeded from a person who entered into the instant sales contract) the amount indicated in the attached Table 2, which is the amount of money distributed in excess of the approved price for conversion for sale in lots in this case (in the case of the Defendant Union, to the Plaintiffs who separately paid the land price, the sum of the amount directly paid and distributed as the land price) from

B. Determination as to the amount distributed by the Defendants

1) Whether the instant sales contract violated the mandatory provisions

A) The purpose of the Rental Housing Act is to promote the construction of rental housing and ensure national housing stability by prescribing matters necessary for the construction, supply, and management of rental housing and the housing rental business. To achieve the above legislative purpose, imposing criminal punishment on rental business operators who converted rental housing in violation of the standards for calculating pre-sale conversion price prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Rental Housing Act, need to prevent such business operators from having accrued economic benefits based on the pre-sale conversion price in violation of such standards. Therefore, the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Rental Housing Act, should be deemed to constitute a mandatory law, and the sales contract concluded with a pre-sale conversion price exceeding the amount based on the calculation standards prescribed under the relevant provisions is null and void within the extent of the excess (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da97079, Apr. 21,

B) Therefore, the instant sales contract, which set the instant agreement for conversion for sale in lots, is null and void to the extent that it exceeds the approval price for conversion for sale in lots.

2) Whether the plaintiffs' approval price for conversion for sale in lots was granted in excess

A) Whether a claim for the refund of rental deposit can be deducted from a sales price payment obligation

(1) The Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) provides that any property claim arising from a cause before the declaration of bankruptcy against a debtor shall be a bankruptcy claim (Article 423), and any bankruptcy claim shall not be exercised without resorting to bankruptcy procedures (Article 424). Meanwhile, the aforementioned Act provides that, if a bankruptcy creditor bears any obligation against a debtor at the time that the bankruptcy is declared, it may be offset without resorting to bankruptcy procedures (Article 416). However, if a bankruptcy creditor bears any obligation against the bankruptcy estate after the declaration of bankruptcy, it shall not be offset (Article 422 subparagraph 1 of the same Act). If a bankruptcy creditor permits a set-off of any obligation borne by the bankruptcy creditor after the declaration of bankruptcy against any other bankruptcy creditor, it would prejudice the fairness among the bankruptcy creditors, thereby allowing the bankruptcy creditor to exercise the claim in accordance with bankruptcy procedures to prevent this (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da31639, Dec. 13, 201).

D. In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiffs' claim for the refund of rental deposit against the defendant trustee in bankruptcy constitutes a claim arising out of a lease agreement prior to the declaration of bankruptcy as to the case of Pyeongtaek. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiffs' claim for the refund of rental deposit against the defendant trustee in bankruptcy cannot be deducted from the payment obligation to the defendant trustee in bankruptcy (see the above Supreme Court Decision).

However, as seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiffs concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendant trustee and paid only the amount calculated by deducting the amount equivalent to the claim for refund of deposits to the Defendant trustee in bankruptcy, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have paid to the Defendant trustee in bankruptcy the amount exceeding the approval price for conversion for sale in lots. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit without examining any further.

B) Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The Plaintiffs asserted that, under Article 415(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to receive the instant lease deposit prior to other creditors, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ payment of the instant lease deposit out of the amount agreed to conversion for sale in the instant case should not be contrary to the purport of Article 422 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act to promote equity among bankruptcy creditors.

However, even if the plaintiffs met the requirements for counterclaim under the Housing Lease Protection Act and obtained the fixed date under the lease agreement certificate, and recognized the preferential right to payment of the lease deposit of this case pursuant to Article 415(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, they can exercise their preferential right to payment as to the proceeds from the sale of each house of this case belonging to the bankrupt estate, and such circumstance alone is insufficient to offset or deduct the claim for refund of the lease deposit under the lease agreement and the obligation for payment of the purchase price under the contract of this case after the declaration of bankruptcy. Thus, the plaintiffs

See The Plaintiffs asserted that Article 422 subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, which is premised on offsetting, is not the sole act of setting-off, but the act of deducting the security deposit of this case from the instant conversion agreement, is based on the instant conversion agreement approved by the court pursuant to Article 492 subparag. 13 through 15 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act and the “contract” of the instant purchase and sale agreement.

However, in light of the purport of Article 422 Subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act to maintain equity among bankruptcy creditors, Article 422 Subparag. 1 of the same Act shall apply even in cases where bankruptcy claims are deducted from debts borne by the bankruptcy creditors after the declaration of bankruptcy. As such, the Plaintiffs’ claim for refund of security deposits against the Defendant trustee in bankruptcy cannot be deducted from the sales price payment obligations owed by the Defendant trustee in bankruptcy, and the foregoing deduction is also based on the “contract” permitted by the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted.

C. Determination on the part of the land price directly received by the Defendant Cooperative

The defendant union did not sell the right to use site separately from the aggregate building to the plaintiffs who paid the land price separately, but received the price for the right to use site acquired by the above plaintiffs from the disposal of the aggregate building purchased through the sales contract of this case. Therefore, the provisions on the prohibition of separate disposal of the section for exclusive use and the right to use site under Article 20 of the Aggregate Buildings Act are not problematic. However, if the purchase price paid by the plaintiffs who paid the land price separately to the defendant bankruptcy trustee and the land price paid to the defendant union exceeds the approval price of this case, the excess portion shall be null and void in accordance with the Rental Housing Act, but the plaintiffs who paid the land price separately as seen in the above paragraph (b) cannot be deemed to have paid the land price exceeding the approval price of this case, and therefore,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jin-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)