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

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. The Defendant is a regional housing association established in order to promote a housing construction project in accordance with the Housing Act and its Enforcement Decree, which designates the Daegu Suwon-gu Seoul Project District as a project implementation district.

B. On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a membership agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant membership agreement”) and paid KRW 161,00,000,000 in total, as a contribution, on April 23, 2015. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26173, May 8, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26190, Jun. 25, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26175, Jun. 69, 200,000; Presidential Decree No. 26173, Apr. 23, 2015.

C. The main contents of the instant covenant are as follows.

Article 7(Definition of Terms): 4. Contributions (Definition of Terms): All amounts paid by members of a cooperative to promote the projects of the cooperative, such as operating expenses of the cooperative, land purchase expenses, construction expenses, etc., and Article 12 (Withdrawal, Disqualification, Expulsion) (1) No cooperative member shall withdraw from the cooperative at will: Provided, That where a cooperative member intends to withdraw from the cooperative due to inevitable causes, he/she shall notify in writing the head of the cooperative of his/her intention 15 days prior to such withdrawal, and the head of the cooperative shall determine whether he/she withdraws from the cooperative by resolution of the general meeting or the board of representatives. (art.)No later than 15 days prior to the date of withdrawal, for a person who loses his/her status as a cooperative member due to the removal, loss of qualification as a cooperative member, expulsion, etc., the principal paid only shall be refunded, excluding agency service expenses, and the time of refund shall be a refund when the deposit has been completed by substitution of a new member and a general seller, but the

D. The main contents of the instant subscription agreement are as follows.

조합원 가입계약서♦ 목적물의 표시 : 대구광역시 수성구 C 일원제1조 (정의 및 목적)1. 본 사업은 조합원의 숙원인 주거생활의 안정과 향상을 도모하기 위한 조합원의주택을 건설 공급함에 있어 이를 위한 자금의 조달, 운영 및 기타 필요한 사업수행을 목적으로 한다.2. “갑(피고)” 과 “을(원고)” 은 조합규약의 규정에 의거하여 사업 종료시까지 신으I, 성실, 협력 원칙에 입각하여 맡은 바 책무를 다하여 행복한 내 집 마련을 위한 본 사업이 성공리에 마무리 될 수 있도록 상호 노력한다.제3조 (조합원 분담금)1. 조합원 분담금액은 토지매입비, 건축공사비, 설계감리비, 철거비, 민원처리, 용역비 및 기타(모델하우스 건립비 등) 본 사업수행에 따른 비용일체를 포함한다.2. “을” 은 다음 분담금 납부일정에 따라 분담금을 기일 내에 납부하여야 한다.■ 조합원 분담금 납부일정 (생략)3. 조합원 분담금에는 업무대행비(1,000만 원/세대)가 포함되어 있음.제7조 (조합원의 자격 상실)3. “을” 이 제1항 및 제2항에 해당하여 조합원 자격을 상실 또는 탈퇴할 경우 기납입한 “조합원분담금” 중 업무대행비를 제외한 납입원금만을 환불하며, 환불일까지 제3조 제1항의 조합원분담금 납입을 위해 “갑” 및 시공사 보증으로 금융기관 대출발생시 그에 대한 이자 지불의무는 “을” 에게 있으며, 환불일까지의공동부담금과 미납된 분담금이 있을 경우 이에 대한 연체료 및 대출금 미납 대출이자와 그 연체료는 환불금에서 공제키로 한다.4. 환불시기는 조합원 또는 일반분양자가 대체되어 입금이 완료된 후 10일 이내로 한다.5. “갑” 은 탈퇴 및 제명된 조합원 세대 및 잔여 세대분에 대하여 본 사업의 원만한 진행을 위하여 대체조합원을 충원 또는 모집할 수 있다.

E. After that, the Defendant applied for the authorization to establish a housing association to the head of Daegu Metropolitan City on April 13, 2015

on June 9, 2015, with the authorization of the housing association from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and until the time.

Won is a total of 985 people.

F. On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for refund payment to the Defendant and requested the return of the contribution paid by the Plaintiff.

G. On February 3, 2016, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff’s request for withdrawal from the Plaintiff, and sent a notice on the title “an instruction on the withdrawal and refund of the Plaintiff’s membership” to the effect that the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff’s contribution pursuant to Article 7(4) of the subscription agreement of this case, and around that time, the Plaintiff received the said notice.

H. Meanwhile, the Defendant, around July 2015, proceeded with the first general partner recruitment procedure, and obtained the approval of the change of the establishment of an association to change the number of union members from 985 members before changing the number of union members from 985 members to 1,183 members after changing the number of union members from 985 members on December 24, 2015 (=985 members - 15 members + 213 members).

(i) On September 6, 2016, the Defendant obtained approval for the change of the establishment of an association from 1,183 members after changing the number of union members from 1,183 members before changing the number of union members due to the change of 1,183 union members, and 1,173 members from 1,183 members after changing the number of union members on September 6, 2016 (i.e., 1,183 members - 11 members + 11 members). The said one additional recruitment member is treated as substitute members with D who first applied for withdrawal from the Plaintiff and did not recruit new union members replacing the Plaintiff.

2. Summary of both claims;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The Defendant advertised false or exaggerated advertisements concerning the loan of interest without interest from intermediate payments, air conditioners, provision of air conditioners without compensation, etc., and the Plaintiff concluded a membership agreement with its members. As such, the Plaintiff entered into a membership agreement with its members.

In addition, the contribution should be refunded (which seems to be asserted on the premise of cancellation).

(2) On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to withdraw to the Defendant, and the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff the document “an instruction on the withdrawal and refund of the members of the Plaintiff,” thereby accepting the Plaintiff’s application for withdrawal and returning the contribution accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to refund the contribution already paid to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion

(1) The defendant did not have any false or exaggerated advertisement asserted by the plaintiff.

(2) After the Plaintiff’s application for withdrawal, the Plaintiff’s alternative members and alternative buyers have not yet been recruited, and the period during which the right to claim the refund of contributions was not due pursuant to Article 7(4) of the Agreement on the Subscription of this case.

3. Determination

(a) Determination as to whether false or exaggerated advertisements are made;

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant entered the evidence No. 5 alone with false or exaggerated advertisements and concluded a contract for joining the plaintiff and association members, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Determination on the duty to return a contribution as expressed in the intention to withdraw from a cooperative

On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for the payment of refund to the Defendant and expressed his/her intent to withdraw. On this occasion, the Defendant sent a written notice to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2016, stating that the Plaintiff would receive the Plaintiff’s request for withdrawal and accordingly, the Plaintiff would be able to receive the said notice at that time.

However, according to Article 7 (4) of the subscription contract of this case, the time of refund for the plaintiff's contribution is within 10 days after the payment is completed by a partner or a general buyer as a substitute.

In a case where it is reasonable to view that a juristic act attached to an associate officer does not perform his/her obligation unless the facts indicated in the associate officer have occurred, it shall be deemed as a condition, and where it is reasonable to view that the obligation should be performed even if not only when the indicated facts have occurred but also when the counterclaim has become final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the existence of the indicated facts has become final and conclusive. Therefore, in a case where certain facts are attached to the additional officer with regard to the repayment of the obligation already borne, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the period of repayment has been postponed, and the time when the facts have not occurred within a reasonable period as well as when the facts have not occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da24215, Aug. 19, 2003; 209Da1643, May 14, 2009).

In other words, the following circumstances recognized by the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire oral argument, namely, ① the Defendant’s obligation to return the contribution to the Plaintiff has already occurred through the Plaintiff’s application for withdrawal, the Defendant’s request for withdrawal, the acceptance of the Defendant’s payment of the contribution, and the guidance on the payment of the contribution. ② Article 7(4) of the subscription agreement of this case provides that the additional members or the general buyers shall pay the contribution within 10 days after the additional members or the general buyers paid the money in substitution. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the time of payment in a fixed manner. It goes beyond the language and text to interpret the condition that the Plaintiff is not liable to pay the contribution if the additional members or the general buyers do not pay the contribution by substitution. ③

In full view of all circumstances, such as the fact that the payment of the refund under Article 7 (4) is stipulated as the payment of the refund, it is reasonable to deem that Article 7 (4) of the subscription contract of this case provides that the occurrence of a cause for the completion of the deposit by an additional partner or seller shall be returned to the Plaintiff with the indefinite time limit.

The fact that the plaintiff did not invite new partnership members or general buyers replacing the plaintiff from the date of withdrawal to the date of closing argument of this case is as seen earlier. In this case, it is not possible to replace additional union members or general buyers, and whether the period of non-determination under the provision of this case arrives.

As seen earlier, the Defendant recruited additional members from January 13, 2016 to February 25, 2016, which was after the Plaintiff’s application for withdrawal, but only one member was recruited, and the number of members requesting withdrawal within the above period exceeds the number of members additionally recruited as 11. As such, the Defendant appears to have not properly recruited additional members, which is the premise for determining the arrival of the above period.

However, in light of the following circumstances and facts acknowledged based on the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Articles 2, 4, and 5 as seen earlier, the progress of the instant project by the Defendant merely appears to have been delayed than the initial plan, and it cannot be readily concluded that the instant project was actually failed or its future outlook was inappropriate to recruit new union members, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the period of non-determination has already arrived.

① At the time of filing an application for authorization for the establishment, the Defendant indicated the expected construction period as “the 30th day of June 2016 to August 30, 2019,” and thus, it appears that it would have been required for about three years only for the original construction period. Although it was later on June 30, 2016, which was the scheduled date for the commencement of construction, and there was no selection or commencement of construction works until it is difficult to conclude the closing date of argument in this case, it cannot be readily concluded as to whether the remaining scheduled construction period is lost at the present time as much as the remaining scheduled construction period is considerable.

② On March 20, 2017, the Defendant selected the said company as an executor to execute the instant project by concluding a MOU with Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. on March 20, 2017. On April 7, 201, the Defendant decided to present an agenda for ratification at the general meeting following a resolution of the board of representatives. In light of the fact that considerable part of the materials necessary for the application for an integrated deliberation and approval of the project plan following the progress of the instant project has already been prepared, it is difficult to deem the progress of the instant

(3) Most members are paying contributions in good faith, the procedures for making internal decisions, such as an ordinary general meeting or a board of representatives, are continuing, and there is no reason to deem that the operation of the defendant has been suspended or impossible otherwise.

④ Although some members, other than the Plaintiff, expressed their intent to withdraw, in light of the total number of partners, the number of withdrawing partners does not reach the extent that the Defendant’s operation or the progress of the instant business is suspended.

⑤ It seems that the Defendant is trying to smoothly carry out the instant project under its own specific plan from the selection of a contractor to the approval of a business plan and the invitation of general buyers.

6. Generally, a regional housing association project requires considerable time because there are many variables such as land purchase, financing, and selection of a contractor in the process of its implementation, and the members of the association are replaced by such variables.

It seems that the circumstances can be predicted.

As a result, the Defendant’s obligation to return the instant contribution under Article 7(4) of the Agreement was not due. On the premise of this, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking immediate payment of the total amount of each of the instant contributions is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.