A. The Plaintiff:

(1) Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20 (Defendant 15 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), 21 (Defendant 16 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), 22 (Defendant 17 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), 23 (Defendant 18 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), 24 (Defendant 19 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), and 25 (Defendant 20 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), jointly and severally;

Shebly and jointly with the Defendants in paragraph (1) above 4,311,018,600

㈎ 피고 15는 1,175,732,345원,

㈏ 피고 16, 17, 18, 19는 각 783,821,563원 및 각 이에 대하여 2002. 12. 21.부터 2006. 6. 18.까지는 연 5%, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20%의 각 비율에 의한 돈을 지급하라.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

3. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

With respect to delay damages from December 21, 2002 to August 9, 2005, the delivery date of the application for modification of claim and cause as of August 5, 2005 is 5% per annum, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff extended the purport of claim at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 50 million won and 5% per annum from July 3, 2003 to the date of the final judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, and the whole purport of arguments as to the evidence of No. 1 to No. 3, A13-1 to 4, A14-1, A14-2, A18, A19, 23, 24, 32 through 38, A25-3 through 10, A26-2, A25-2, 3, 6 through 9, A27-1 through 29, Eul evidence of No. 22-2, Eul evidence of No. 27-1, 2, 8, 9, and 13-1.

A. Status of the defendant, etc.

(1) From August 1, 1999, Defendant 1: (a) the head of the association, Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the non-party land rearrangement association (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party association”) with the authorization of establishment under the former Land Rearrangement Project Act (repealed by Act No. 6252, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter the same) and the head of the association, Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the non-party land rearrangement association (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party association”); (b) the directors of the non-party association; (c) the deceased; and (d) the non-party 1 deceased; and (d) the defendant 7 (appointed by July 3, 2001; and (e) the auditor of the non-party association; and (e) the person appointed as the auditor of the non-party association.

B. On April 25, 2004, Defendant 15, his wife, died, and Defendant 16, Defendant 17, Defendant 18, and Defendant 19, his wife, jointly inherited their respective 2/11 shares, respectively.

B. Conclusion and progress of the entrustment contract

(1) The non-party association obtained permission from the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City, for the land readjustment project of the same military document (hereinafter omitted) about 83,200 square meters (hereinafter the instant land rearrangement project) from the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, with the duration of the project from July 191 to July 31, 1994.

B. On January 23, 191, 191, the non-party association entrusted the execution right of the compartmentalization and rearrangement project in this case to the non-party 2 corporation by setting the remaining area except for public land from the total area of the land stipulated in Article 53 (2) of the former Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, which is the basis for the replotting delivery in the project district, as the entrusted contract amount, and on September 191, the non-party 3 corporation ordered the construction of the facilities of the rearrangement and rearrangement project in this case.

Consolidated Director of the Plaintiff’s representative director, Nonparty 4 loaned the name of Nonparty 3 Company and Nonparty 5 Company to Nonparty 7,271,596,000 won for the construction cost of the instant compartmentalization and rearrangement project on March 17, 1993.

In the event that Nonparty 4 was discovered to have the name of Nonparty 5 corporation and the construction license was revoked, Nonparty 4 established Nonparty 6 corporation and received a contract for the instant facilities construction from Nonparty 5 on October 17, 1994 on the condition that he succeeded to the status of Nonparty 5 corporation in its name. On the same day, Nonparty 5 agreed with Nonparty 5 corporation to pay settlement amount under the said contract at KRW 2,865,656,000 and terminated the said contract.

(v) On June 20, 1995, the non-party association agreed with the non-party 2 corporation about the settlement amount under the above consignment contract as KRW 4,595,494,000, and terminated the said consignment contract.

⑹ 소외 4는 소외 7 주식회사를 설립하여 1995. 8. 31. 그 명의로 소외 조합으로부터 이 사건 구획정리사업 중 소외 2 주식회사가 시행하던 나머지 부분에 대한 사업시행권을 소외 2 주식회사의 도급액 중 위 정산금 4,595,494,000원을 뺀 나머지 금액을 도급액으로 정하여 위탁받았다.

⑺ 한편 소외 6 주식회사는 1996. 3. 31. 소외 조합과 사이에 위 도급계약에 따른 정산금을 1,323,190,000원으로 합의하고 위 도급계약을 해지하였다.

⑻ 소외 4는 다시 소외 8 주식회사를 설립하여 1996. 3. 30. 소외 7 주식회사로부터 이 사건 시설공사 잔여분을 공사대금 30억 8,275만 원, 공사기간 1996. 3. 31.부터 1997. 3. 31.까지로 하여 도급받고, 같은 달 31. 소외 토지구획정리조합과 사이에서도 소외 7 주식회사와 체결한 계약과 같은 조건으로 위 시설공사를 도급받는 계약을 체결하였는데, 위 공사기간은 두 차례에 걸쳐 변경되어 1999. 7. 31.까지로 연장되었다.

⑼ 소외 7 주식회사는 1997. 5. 31. 소외 조합과 사이에 위 위수탁계약에 따른 정산금을 539,268,390원으로 합의하고 위 계약을 해지하였고, 원고는 같은 날 소외 조합과 사이에 소외 조합으로부터 이 사건 구획정리사업 중 소외 7 주식회사가 시행하던 나머지 부분의 시행권을 위탁받기로 하는 위수탁계약(이하, 이 사건 위수탁계약이라 한다)을 체결하였는데, 그 주요 내용은 다음과 같다.

Article 2 (Contract Amount)

① The contract amount is the same as the contract amount between the non-party union and the non-party 7 stock company in lieu of the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 539,268,390 to the non-party 7 stock company (i.e., the purport of including the above KRW 539,268,390 paid by the Plaintiff to the non-party 7 stock company in the Plaintiff’s project cost).

(2) The area of a public site shall be authorized when designing.

(3) The unit price of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay shall be the amount under authorized business plans.

Article 4 (Business Period)

The plaintiff shall complete the project within the project implementation period after the conclusion of this contract: Provided, That

Where the period of project has been postponed due to a natural disaster or other force majeure, the two parties shall be determined through consultation (the period of project implementation was extended by July 29, 1997, which was later extended by several times, and finally extended by July 29, 2002).

Article 9 (Payment of Price for Divided Works)

(1) In principle, progress payments for contract shall be calculated as design unit price (252,00 won per one square meter), and shall be paid as land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, but may be paid in cash at the request of the plaintiff. Upon the plaintiff's request, the association shall sell and pay the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay at the request of the plaintiff. In addition, the association may sell or transfer the

(2) A contract progress payment shall be paid after consulting engineers make a resolution by the board of directors of the association and obtaining approval from the relevant authorities after examining the circumstances.

Article 17 (Effect of Contracts)

This contract shall take effect from the date of the contract and shall be extended without modification if the period of project is extended.

C. Claims against the Plaintiff’s non-party partnership under the instant entrustment contract

(1) On February 6, 1998, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of the issuance of KRW 2670 million with the non-party union on February 6, 1998. The non-party union approved that the pertinent amount of KRW 2,671,572,00, which was held on April 7, 1998 by the 43th meeting of the board of directors, which was held on April 7, 1998 by the non-party 9, was the supervisor, and approved that the amount of KRW 2,671,572,00, which was held on June 18, 1998 at the 11st meeting of the 11st meeting of representatives, which was held on June 18, 1998.

B. On February 19, 2001, the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, the supervising authority of the land readjustment project of this case, confirmed the site from February 19, 201 to March 24, 2001, and notified the result of confirmation to the non-party partnership on March 12, 200, as part of the inspection of the land readjustment project of this case. The notice states that the Jindo of the land rearrangement project of this case is 92%.

The non-party union announced the extension of the business period on July 9, 2001, and the written notice stated that the period ratio up to that time is 92%.

x) On January 7, 2004, the Ulsan District Court 2001Da3425 decided that the non-party union filed a claim against the plaintiff that the non-party union does not have any obligation under the above consignment contract of this case, and the above court rendered a judgment that "the non-party union's obligation to the plaintiff under the above consignment contract of this case does not exceed KRW 433,907,920," and the plaintiff appealed to Busan High Court 2004Na3529, and the above court rendered a judgment on February 18, 2005 that "the obligation to the plaintiff of the non-party union under the above consignment contract of this case does not exceed KRW 2,876,887,920," and the appeal against the non-party union was dismissed.

(v) Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the non-party association for the performance of the procedure for change of the name of the owner on the ledger of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay on the ground of the instant entrustment contract with respect to the land allotted by the non-party association listed in the annexed Table No. 1, Ulsan District Court No. 2002Gahap41, and the above court rendered a judgment of accepting the Plaintiff’s claim on January 7, 2004 only with respect to the land allotted by the development recompense for development recompense for the first instance, and the Plaintiff appealed to Busan High Court No. 2004Na3536 on February 18, 2005, and the above court rendered a judgment of accepting the Plaintiff’s claim against the land allotted by the non-party association as to the land allotted by the development recompense for development recompense

D. Disposition, etc. of land allotted by the non-party partnership

(1) On July 3, 2001, the 16th council of representatives of the non-party partnership, the auditor, and the defendant 1, the president of the partnership, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 22, 23, 24, and 25, including the non-party 1 deceased, the defendant 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, shall be paid the progress payment based on the relevant data after the revision of the business plan, on the ground that the plaintiff's excessive demand for the payment of the plaintiff's progress payment, but if the plaintiff fails to complete the division rearrangement work by July 29, 2001, the above defendants agreed to the above resolution and appointed the defendant 7, the representative of the council as the auditor.

B. On August 7, 2001, the board of directors of the non-party cooperative, opened on August 7, 2001, concluded the instant entrustment contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the grounds that Defendant 1, directors, Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, Defendant 6, and 7, who are the president of the cooperative, attend, and the Plaintiff did not submit documents for settlement of gender, and do not execute construction. The remaining construction by selling development recompense land and selling the land as a resolution of the 16th board of representatives, and the authority for the sale of the land secured for recompense of development outlay was decided to be entrusted to Defendant 1, who is the president of the cooperative.

On August 22, 2001, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 11 notified the termination of the instant consignment contract and the instant consignment contract concluded with Nonparty 11 on the ground that Nonparty 1 did not undertake the instant subdivision rearrangement work.

Defendant 1, the president of the non-party partnership, jointly with Defendant 5, sold to non-party 12, etc. the sum of 2,8,18, and 713.2 square meters of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay listed in attached Table 2, 8, 18 on September 20, 201 (each of the above recompense for development outlay is the land that ordered the non-party partnership to change the name of the owner on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to the plaintiff in front of the above Busan High Court Decision 2004Na3536), and changed the name of the owner on the same day to each purchaser.

(v) On September 2001, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional disposition prohibiting change of the name in the registry of the land secured for recompense of development outlay with respect to the land indicated in the "real estate subject to provisional disposition" in attached Form 2, attached to Ulsan District Court 2001Kahap677, with the debtor of the non-party partnership, for provisional disposition prohibiting change of the ownership of the land secured for recompense of development outlay as the right to be preserved. The above court accepted the Plaintiff's application and rendered a decision on September 21, 2001 that "the debtor shall not change the name of the owner on the land secured for recompense of development recompense of development recompense of development recompense as the debtor's custody against the above land secured for development recompense of development recompense of development outlay" (hereinafter the instant provisional disposition order in this case was delivered to the non-party

⑹ 그런데 피고 1은 그 이후에도 소외 조합의 상임이사인 피고 5, 감사인 피고 6, 7과 협의하여 별지 체비지 매각현황표 순번 3 내지 7, 9 내지 17, 19 기재와 같이 합계 10,446.3㎡(위 각 체비지 또한 앞서 본 부산고등법원 2004나3536호 판결 에서 소외 조합에게 체비지대장상의 소유자 명의를 원고로 변경할 것을 명한 토지이다, 이하에서는 피고 1이 매도한 별지 매각현황표 순번 2 내지 19 기재 체비지 합계 11,159.5㎡를 이 사건 체비지라 한다)의 체비지를 매각하고 각 매도일에 체비지대장상의 소유자 명의를 각 매수인으로 변경하였을 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 변론종결일 무렵까지 계속하여 나머지 체비지를 매각함으로써 소외 조합이 원고에게 기성금의 지급에 갈음하여 이전할 체비지는 남지 않게 되었고, 또한 그로써 소외 조합이 원고에게 기성금을 지급할 변제 자력도 없게 되었다.

⑹ 이 사건 가처분결정이 소외 조합에 송달된 이후인 2002. 3. 14. 열린 소외 조합 제17차 대의원회에서는 감사인 피고 6, 7이 참석한 가운데 원고와 사이의 분쟁이 거론되었음에도 불구하고 소외 1 망인, 피고 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25(제16차 대의원회의에서 체비지 매각을 결의한 대의원 중 피고 14를 제외한 자들이다) 등 소외 조합의 대의원들은 조합장인 피고 1이 그때까지 실행한 체비지의 매각을 승인하고, 차후 조합장은 감사로부터 매각확인서를 받고 체비지를 매각하기로 의결하였다.

⑺ 소외 조합이 이 사건 가처분결정에 대하여 울산지방법원 2001카합823호 로 이의를 하여 위 법원이 2004. 1. 7. 별지 제2목록 “제1심 인가 부동산”란 기재 체비지에 대하여만 위 가처분결정을 인가하는 판결을 선고하였고, 이에 대하여 원고가 부산고등법원 2004나3543호 로 항소를 제기하여 위 법원이 2005. 2. 18. 같은 목록 “당심 인가 부동산”란 기재 체비지(본안사건에서 인용된 체비지와 동일한 체비지이다)에 대하여만 위 가처분결정을 인가하는 판결을 선고하였으며, 이에 대한 소외 조합의 상고는 기각되었다.

(e) Ratification of sale of land allotted by development recompense;

(1) On July 16, 2002, the 18th council of representatives of the non-party cooperative, opened on July 16, 2002, there was an audit report by Defendant 6 on the sale of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, but there was no objection by Defendant 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and Defendant 7 of the auditor.

After the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on November 26, 2002, the 55th meeting of the non-party partnership, which was held on November 26, 2002, the board of directors of the 55th meeting, attended the meeting of Defendant 1, the standing director, the non-party 5, the non-party 13, the directors, the non-party 2, 3, 4, the auditor, and the defendant 6 and 7, who are the president of the association, and

On November 27, 2002, the 19th conference of the non-party association, which was opened on November 27, 2002, approved the sale of the land allotted in recompense for development outlay that was implemented by the consent of all the members, at the meeting of the non-party 1 deceased, the representative of the association, the non-party 8, the non-party 9, 10, 11, 14, 20, 22, 23, and 24, the auditor, and the non-party 6 and the non-party 7, the president of the association, and re-decided the sale of the remaining land allotted

x) On December 11, 2002, the 56th meeting of the non-party association, opened on December 11, 2002, the 56th meeting of the board of directors, attended the association president, the non-party 5, the standing director, the non-party 13, the non-party 2, 3, and 4, and the auditor, and confirmed the remaining decision that the remaining land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay will be entrusted to the partnership president at the 55th meeting of the board of directors. At the time, the defendant 5 explained that the decision that the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay should be unlawful and that the directors and representatives may incur property

(f) the relevant provisions;

(1) The former Land Readjustment Project Act

Article 22 (Executives)

(1) A cooperative shall have one president, directors, and auditors, and the number of directors and auditors shall be determined by the articles of association within the scope of the standards determined by Presidential Decree.

(2) Officers shall be appointed at a general meeting from among members pursuant to the articles of association.

(3) The term of officers shall be determined by the articles of association within a period not exceeding four years: Provided, That the term of a substitute officer shall be the remaining term of his predecessor.

Article 23 (Duties)

(1) The head of an association shall represent the association, preside over its affairs, and preside over a general meeting or a board of representatives.

(2) Directors shall assist the president of the association and take partial charge of the affairs of the association.

(3) The auditor shall audit the property and accounts of the association and affairs related thereto.

Article 25 (General Meeting)

(1) A union shall hold general meetings.

(2) A general meeting shall be comprised of members.

Article 26 (Matters to be Resolved by General Meeting)

1. Amendment of the articles of association;

2. Alteration of the business plan;

3. Method of borrowing funds, interest rate, and method of repayment;

4. The revenue and expenditure budget;

5. The amount and collection method of dues;

6. Land substitution plan;

7. Designation of reserved land for replotting;

8. The method of disposing of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay under Article 54; and

9. Other matters prescribed by the Presidential Decree or the articles of association.

Article 27 (Board of Representatives)

(1) A cooperative, the number of members of which is 100 or more, may establish a board of representatives to authorize the cooperative to exercise its authority on behalf of the general meeting.

(2) The board of representatives shall be comprised of representatives, and the number of representatives shall be determined by the articles of association, but shall not be less than one tenth of the total number of members.

(3) The board of representatives shall act on behalf of all general meetings except the matters prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(4) The representatives shall be elected by a general meeting from among the members as prescribed by the articles of association.

(5) The term of a representative shall be determined by the articles of association within the limit not exceeding four years: Provided, That the term of a substitute representative shall be the remaining term of his predecessor.

[Attachment] The former Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment Project Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16933, Aug. 2, 2000)

Article 17 (Matters to be Resolved by General Meeting) "Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree" in subparagraph 9 of Article 26 of the Act means the matters concerning merger or dissolution of the association.

Article 18 (Acting for Board of Representatives) The term “matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” as referred to in Article 27 (3) of the Act means those as referred to in the following subparagraphs:

1. Appointment of the president, directors, and auditors of an association;

2. Matters as referred to in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 26 of the Act;

3. Merger or dissolution of the association;

【Articles of Incorporation of the Non-Party Association

Among the articles of association of the non-party association, the main contents related to the disposal of land secured for development outlay are as follows.

Article 17 (Matters to be Resolved by General Meeting) The following matters shall undergo a resolution at a general meeting: Provided, That matters to be resolved at a general meeting may be delegated to the board of representatives under the articles of association:

1. Amendment of the articles of association;

2. Alteration of the business plan;

10. Determination of disposal methods of land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay;

Article 18 (Board of Representatives)

(1) An association shall have a board of representatives to act on behalf of a general meeting.

(2) The board of representatives shall be comprised of representatives, and the prescribed number of representatives shall be at least 1/10 of the members, as a quorum.

Article 19 (Matters to be Resolved by Board of Representatives) Any decision in lieu of the general meeting with the exception of the following matters:

1. Appointment of executives or representatives;

2. Alteration of the articles of association under subparagraph 1 of Article 17; and

3. Matters concerning the merger and dissolution of this association, and where it is impossible to hold a general meeting because members of the general meeting have not been established, dissolution may be made through a resolution of the board of representatives;

4. A project plan without any change in the project plan or the reduction rate in the short term shall be excluded;

【Regulations on Disposition of Reserved Land, etc. and Budget and Accounts

The main contents of the disposal of reserved land, etc. and the disposal of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, etc., determined by the resolution of the board of representatives concerning the enforcement of the articles of association of the

CHAPTER 2

Land to be sold to cover project costs under Article 2 (Land Subject to Sale) means land secured by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and other sites prescribed by the project plan.

Land to be sold under Article 3 (Methods of Sale) shall be sold through open competitive bidding with the approval of the supervisory authority: Provided, That in cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the land may be sold by a negotiated contract or disposed of by a resolution of the representatives' meeting:

5. (d) Where a cooperative entrusts a contractor with a project to be implemented by the cooperative for unavoidable reasons, it may calculate the amount of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay for the project under the entrustment contract from among the land subject to sale prescribed in Article 2 and transfer such land in advance with approval of the supervisory authority;

Article 6 (Determination of Price)

(2) When business clients pay land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, etc. under Article 3 (4), it shall be stipulated in the business plan and contract.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Establishment of tort

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to claims against a third party and exceeding the bounds of the principle of good customs and other social order. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to claims against a third party. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to claims against a third party, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to claims against a third party, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to claims against a third party, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to claims against a third party.

Meanwhile, in the case where the land rearrangement project executor designates a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay before a replotting disposition is taken under Articles 54, 57(4), and 62(6) of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act and disposes of it to a third party, if the purchaser first satisfies one of the requirements, such as the transfer of the land or the registration in the register of the lands allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, the purchaser may oppose the other double assignees. Thus, in the case of double selling the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, the seller’s obligation as a seller on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development outlay for the other buyer at the time when the buyer changed the name of the owner in the register of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay

⑵ 이 사건 위수탁계약에서 도급 기성금은 설계단가로 계산하여 체비지로 지급함을 원칙으로 하되, 원고의 요청이 있을 경우 현금으로 지급할 수도 있다고 약정한 사실 및 원고가 소외 조합에게 도급 기성금의 지급을 체비지로 청구하였음은 앞서 본 바와 같고, 위 인정사실을 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 보면, ① 소외 조합의 대의원들인 소외 1 망인, 피고 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25는 1998. 6. 18. 개최된 소외 조합 제11차 대의원회에서 감리자의 기성감리를 토대로 원고의 기성고가 26억 7,000만 원이라고 승인하고 그 중 240,376,00원만 지급하여 소외 조합이 이 사건 위수탁계약에 따라 원고에게 나머지 기성금에 해당하는 체비지를 지급할 의무가 있다는 사정 및 소외 조합이 보유하고 있던 체비지를 타에 매도할 경우 원고의 소외 조합에 대한 채권이 유명무실하게 되거나, 소외 조합의 책임재산이 감소되어 원고의 채권이 실행 곤란에 빠지게 되리라는 사정을 잘 알면서 앞서 본 바와 같이 2001. 7. 3. 열린 소외 조합 제16차 대의원회에서 뚜렷한 근거도 없이 원고에 대한 기성금의 지급을 거절하고, 조합이 보유한 체비지를 매각하여 조합이 스스로 잔여공사를 시공하기로 의결하면서 조합장의 체비지 처분에 아무런 제한을 가하지 아니하고, 이 사건 체비지의 매각을 금지하는 취지의 이 사건 가처분결정이 2001. 9. 말경 소외 조합에 송달된 사실을 알고서도 2002. 3. 14. 개최된 제17차 대의원회 또는 2002. 7. 16. 개최된 대의원회에 참석하여 다시 이 사건 체비지의 처분권한을 피고 1에게 일임하는 의결을 하거나, 피고 1의 체비지 처분행위를 추인하는 의결을 하여 앞서 본 바와 같이 조합장인 피고 1로 하여금 이 사건 체비지를 매도하고, 체비지대장상의 소유자 명의를 변경하게 함으로써 소외 조합의 원고에 대한 기성금 지급채무를 이행불능에 빠지게 하였다 할 것인데, 위와 같은 소외 1 망인과 위 피고들의 행위는 그 자체로 사회질서에 위반하거나 정당한 이유 없이 원고의 소외 조합에 대한 채권을 침해한 것으로서 불법행위를 구성할 뿐만 아니라, 피고 1의 불법행위에 가공 또는 방조한 것이라고 할 것이고, ② 소외 조합의 이사인 피고 2, 3, 4는 앞서 본 바와 같이 원고의 소외 조합에 대한 채권이 침해될 것이라는 사정을 잘 알면서 2001. 8. 7. 열린 제52차 이사회에서 제16차 대의원회의 의결대로 이 사건 체비지의 매각에 관한 권한을 조합장인 피고 1에게 일임하는 의결을 하고, 이 사건 가처분결정이 소외 조합에 송달되고 원고가 이 사건 소를 제기한 이후인 2002. 11. 26. 열린 제55차 이사회 및 2002. 12. 11. 열린 제56차 이사회에서 재차 잔여 체비지의 매각을 피고 1에게 일임하거나, 추인함으로써 소외 조합의 원고에 대한 기성금 지급채무를 이행불능에 빠지게 하였다 할 것인데, 위와 같은 위 피고들의 행위는 그 자체로 사회질서에 위반하거나 정당한 이유 없이 원고의 소외 조합에 대한 채권을 침해한 것으로서 불법행위를 구성할 뿐만 아니라, 피고 1의 불법행위에 가공 또는 방조한 것이라고 할 것이고, ③ 피고 1은 소외 조합의 조합장으로서 앞서 본 바와 같은 원고의 소외 조합에 대한 채권이 침해될 것이라는 사정을 잘 알면서 소외 조합의 상임이사인 피고 5, 감사인 피고 6, 7과 공동하여 소외 조합 제16차 대의원회 및 제52차 이사회의 체비지 처분 의결을 근거로 이 사건 체비지를 제3자에게 매도하고(더구나 피고 1은 이 사건 체비지의 대장상 명의변경을 금지하는 이 사건 가처분결정이 소외 조합에 송달되었음에도 불구하고 이 사건 체비지 중 별지 체비지 매각현황표 순번 2, 8, 18 기재 체비지를 제외한 나머지 체비지를 매도하였다) 소외 조합이 보관하고 있는 체비지대장상의 소유자 명의를 각 매수인으로 변경함으로써 소외 조합의 원고에 대한 기성금 지급채무, 즉 위 부산고등법원 2004나3536호 판결 에 따라 이 사건 체비지대장상의 소유자 명의를 원고로 변경할 채무를 이행불능에 빠지게 하였다 할 것인바, 위와 같은 피고 1의 행위는 사회질서에 반하거나 정당한 이유 없이 원고의 소외 조합에 대한 채권을 침해한 것으로서 불법행위를 구성하고, ④ 소외 조합의 상임이사인 피고 5, 감사인 피고 6, 7은 피고 1과 공동하여 이 사건 체비지를 매도하고(뿐만 아니라, 피고 6은 위 각 대의원회와 이사회에 참석하여 그 의결에 동조하였고, 피고 5는 위 ③에서 본 각 이사회에 참석하여 그와 같은 의결을 하였으며, 피고 7은 제16차 대의원회에서 대의원으로 의결하였고, 그 이후 개최된 각 대의원회 및 이사회에서 감사로서 참여하여 각 의결에 동조하였다) 체비지 대장상의 소유자 명의를 각 매수인으로 변경함으로써 원고의 소외 조합에 대한 채권을 이행불능에 빠지게 하였다 할 것인바, 이와 같은 위 피고들의 행위는 사회질서에 위반하거나 정당한 이유 없이 원고의 소외 조합에 대한 채권을 침해한 것으로서 불법행위를 구성한다 할 것이다.

(b) Scope of damages;

The fact that the non-party union notified the plaintiff of the termination of the entrustment contract of this case on or around August 22, 2001 is as mentioned above. Thus, the non-party union is obligated at least to change the name of the owner in the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay from September 20, 201 to December 20, 202 to the third party. The non-party union sold the land allotted by the development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for the third party from September 20 to December 30, 202, and the name of the owner in the land ledger for development recompense for development outlay for the third party union was changed to each purchaser, and the non-party union's obligation to pay the price for development outlay for the plaintiff was omitted. The non-party union's obligation to pay the price to the plaintiff on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for 15, 16, 201, 36, 14, 181, 24, 15, 10

C. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

(1) Determination as to the assertion of immunity or negligence

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of damages, considering the above Plaintiff’s negligence, since the Defendants’ resolution to sell the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay was not only delayed construction works but also frequent complaints and accusations that interfere with the implementation of the business of the Nonparty Union by filing a complaint or accusation, and the construction defects were due to serious circumstances

The defendants' assertion that there is a significant defect in the division rearrangement work of this case does not have any evidence to acknowledge it, and according to the evidence of the above, the plaintiff delayed part of construction work, and the defendant 1 et al. filed a complaint against the executive officers of the non-party union. However, according to each of the above evidence, the plaintiff did not pay progress payment at time and delay part of construction work. The plaintiff can only recognize the fact that the plaintiff, et al. sold the land allotted by the non-party 1 et al. to the other in spite of the provisional disposition order of this case, and the plaintiff's claim was infringed upon by his claim, and according to the above facts, the defendants' joint sale of the land allotted by the development recompense of this case and infringing the plaintiff's claim against the non-party union is an intentional tort. Thus, it is not permissible to assert that the person who intentionally committed a tort reduces his liability on the ground of the victim's care. Thus, the above argument is not reasonable.

Do Governor's argument on the administrative capacity

Defendant 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 asserted to the effect that the non-party 1 deceased merely participated in the 16th meeting opened on July 3, 2001 and the 17th meeting opened on March 14, 2002 under the status of his/her office capacity, and thus, he/she is not liable. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this by only the descriptions in the 18-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 18, and there is no reason to acknowledge it. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, as to the Plaintiff, ① Defendant 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 jointly and severally with the above Defendants, ② Defendant 15 out of the above 4,311,018,60 won jointly and severally with the above Defendants, KRW 175,732, 345 won (= KRW 4,311, 318, 600 x KRW 3/111, 8, 9, 10, 110, 111, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23, 24, 24, and 25, Defendant 15, 31, 318, 201, and 26, 201.

[Attachment 1, 2, 3, and Omission of List]

Judges’ aid (Presiding Judge)