2. Qropool lease Co., Ltd.;

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant B District Housing Association and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Cropool Lease Co., Ltd. are dismissed, respectively.

3. As to the costs of lawsuit, 30% of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s District Housing Association shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder by the said Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Mycho Lease is borne by

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

O Claim against the Preliminary Defendant: A Myro Lease Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Company”) shall pay to the Plaintiff 78,000,000 won with 5% per annum from November 24, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the following day to the full payment date.

O The defendant association is a regional housing association established to promote a housing construction project in accordance with the Housing Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, which sets the first three project districts of Busan Metropolitan City as a project implementation district. The defendant company is a company that vicariously carries out all the affairs related to the housing construction project of the defendant association.

On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a membership agreement with the Defendant Union (hereinafter referred to as the “instant membership agreement”) and paid the Defendant Union KRW 10,000,000,000 in total, as of July 24, 2015, and KRW 28,000,000 in the first contribution on July 28, 2015, and KRW 28,000,000 in the second contribution on November 20, 2015, and KRW 10,000 in the second contribution on November 23, 2015.

O The main contents of the contract of this case and the rules of the defendant union at the time of the subscription contract of this case are as follows.

Article 3 (Qualifications for Members) (1) of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Housing Association does not own a house from the date of application for the establishment of the Housing Association until the date of occupancy of the housing association; Article 12 (Refund) (3) of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Housing Association; Article 7 (2) of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Housing Association; Article 7 (2) of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Housing Association; Article 7 (2) of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Housing Association; Article 3 (Qualifications for Members); Article 9 (Qualifications for Members) of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Housing Association does not own a house from the date of application for the establishment of the Housing Association; Article 12 (Refund) of the Decree on the Head of the Housing who owns one bonds with an exclusive residential area not exceeding 85m2; Article 12 (Refund) of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Housing Association; Article 7 (2) of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Housing Association; Article 7 (3) of the Agreement on the Establishment of the Housing Association; Article 15 (Qualifications for Members);

O The defendant union obtained the authorization of establishment of the regional housing association on November 6, 2015 from the Gyeongsan market.

O The Plaintiff, on February 12, 2016, changed the head of the household to D as his/her spouse, lost the status of the head of the household, and thereby lost his/her eligibility as a member of the Defendant Union. Accordingly, the Defendant Union notified the Plaintiff on April 13, 2017 and June 7, 2017.

O) On the other hand, on December 29, 2016, the Defendant Union held a general meeting of association members and resolved to amend the bylaws of association, and subsequently amended the previous rules of association in relation to refund payment as follows.

Article 14 (Withdrawal, Disqualification, Expulsion of Members), D. D. Withdrawal, Disqualification, Disqualification, expulsion, etc. of Members, 20% (total amount of contributions), the balance deducted from the total amount of contributions (the first and second contributions), agency expenses, etc. shall be refunded, and the time of refund shall be paid within 30 days after the full payment is made in substitution for members and general buyers. In addition, the time of refund may be determined separately by a resolution of the board of directors and the board of representatives. In this regard, no objection shall be raised.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 3 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant union

A. Determination as to the assertion on the rescission of a contract

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) The head of the Defendant Union and the employees of the Defendant Company explained to the Plaintiff that the construction of the apartment building will begin on March 2016 at the time of the instant subscription agreement, and that the construction would be completed around October 2018. However, the apartment building construction of the Defendant Union did not reach the commencement date even on March 2016, and it was not consistent with the schedule for the initial progress of the project.

(B) The Plaintiff was disqualified as a member under the Housing Act. Accordingly, the instant subscription agreement became impossible.

(C) The Plaintiff is obligated to cancel the instant subscription agreement for the foregoing reasons, and the Defendant Union is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 78,000,000,000, including the Plaintiff’s share of expenses, and damages for delay.

(2) Determination:

(A) At the time of concluding the instant subscription agreement with the Plaintiff, the president of the Defendant Union and the employees of the Defendant Company explained about the schedule of the project, such as the commencement date of construction of the apartment, the completion date of occupancy, etc., or there is no evidence to acknowledge that the period during which construction of the apartment was due to the instant subscription agreement has been fixed. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the termination of the contract

(B) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff lost its head’s eligibility as a member of the Defendant Union by changing his/her spouse to his/her spouse. However, the Plaintiff’s ground for disqualification as a member of the Plaintiff

Since the plaintiff is not due to the reasons attributable to the defendant association, the plaintiff cannot cancel the contract of this case for this reason. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on the cancellation of contract due to the impossibility of performance is without merit.

(C) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the termination of a contract is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion on cancellation of a contract

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant company purchased and secured 100% of the project site at the time of the recruitment of the members of the defendant association, and the head of the defendant association and the employees of the defendant company purchased and secured 100% of the project site at the time of the recruitment of the members of the defendant association. The defendant association and the employees of the defendant association agreed that the plaintiff would be at a price lower than the surrounding market price, would designate a particularly good Dong and lake, and would have secured 100% of the land purchase. The plaintiff believed this and entered into the subscription contract of this case. The plaintiff concluded the subscription contract of this case due to the mistake or mistake on the part of the defendant association. The defendant association is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of 78,00,000,000 won and delay damages.

(2) Determination:

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant association, the head of the defendant association, the head of the defendant association, and the employees of the defendant company have induced the plaintiff, or that the plaintiff had entered into the contract of this case by causing mistake. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion as to the cancellation of the

C. Determination on the assertion of refund of contributions due to the loss of membership

(1) The occurrence of the obligation to return the contribution

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff lost the membership of the Defendant Union by losing the status of the householder on February 12, 2016. Accordingly, the Defendant Union’s membership agreement and the Plaintiff are as mentioned above.

The Plaintiff is obligated to refund the contributions paid by the Plaintiff according to the rules of the Defendant Union.

(2) The scope of the contributions to be refunded

(A) At the time of the instant subscription agreement, where the Plaintiff lost its membership due to the loss of the Plaintiff’s membership, only the remainder of KRW 19,500,000 (i.e., KRW 390,000,000) equivalent to 5% of the total amount of the Plaintiff’s contribution (i.e., KRW 390,000,000) was agreed to refund the remainder after deducting the amount of KRW 19,50,000 from the amount of the contribution paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 19,50,000). At the time of the instant subscription agreement, as seen earlier, the rules of the Defendant Union were also stipulated as above, or can be recognized by the statement under subparagraph 2 of the Plaintiff’s contribution. Accordingly, the Defendant Union may refund the amount of KRW 78,50,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s contribution (i.e., KRW 78,000,000).

(B) As to this, the Defendant Union asserts that the amount of KRW 78,00,000 (=390,000,000) equivalent to 20% of the total amount of the contributions paid by the Plaintiff in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Defendant Union as amended on December 29, 2016 should be deducted (=20% of the total contributions).

On December 29, 2016, the amendment to the rules of the Defendant Union was made to the effect that the scope of the refund due to the deprivation of membership's qualification was to be returned after deducting 20% of the total amount of the contributions. However, since the amendment to the above rules was made after February 12, 2016 when the Plaintiff loses membership, the amendment cannot be applied to the Plaintiff (it cannot be applied to the Plaintiff on purpose, or the Plaintiff did not claim for the deprivation of membership's qualification and the refund of contributions therefrom before the amendment to the rules of the Association.)

Therefore, the argument about the defendant union is without merit.

(3) Whether the time of return arrives or not

As seen earlier, the time when the Plaintiff returned the contribution due to the forfeiture of membership at the time of entering into the instant membership agreement with the Defendant Union was determined as the time when the Plaintiff was replaced by a substitute partner or a general buyer after the authorization of establishment of the association was granted.

However, the contents of the subscription contract of this case constitute a standardized contract as it falls under the terms and conditions of a contract prepared in advance in order to enter into a contract with the majority of the parties who intend to join the defendant union, and the above provisions which restrict the time of return of contributions among the contents of the subscription contract of this case are similar to the sales contract or sales contract in that it is ultimate purpose to acquire a house, i.e., the sale contract of this case is similar to the sales contract or sales contract, and there is no restriction on the time of return in the case of a sales contract or sales contract, ii) it can be too long if an excessive long period of time is required until the fulfillment of the requirements of the restriction on the time of refund, or if the requirements are not satisfied, iii) it is too difficult to view that the purpose of smoothly proceeding the housing construction project of the defendant union or securing the expenses spent in the process can be sufficiently achieved through the provision on the deduction of contributions, and thus, it is reasonable to deem it invalid under Article 6

Meanwhile, according to the rules and regulations of the Defendant Union, which was enacted and implemented when the Plaintiff entered into the instant membership agreement and when the Plaintiff loses membership, the time to return the contribution was determined as “within 30 days from the date of claim for refund.” As seen earlier, the Plaintiff sought the return of the contribution on the ground of the Plaintiff’s loss of membership’s membership through a preparatory document prepared on September 25, 2017, and it is evident in the record that the said preparatory document was served to the attorney of the Defendant Union on September 26, 2017. Thus, the Defendant Union’s obligation to refund the said contribution to the Plaintiff within 30 days from September 26, 2017.

(2) the Corporation.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, from October 27, 2017 to October 24, 2017, the adjudication date of this case, which is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation of the Defendant Union to pay to the Plaintiff the share of KRW 58,500,000 due to the loss of qualification for the Cooperative Committee, and damages for delay by 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company

A. The plaintiff's assertion

If the obligation to return to the plaintiff of the defendant association is not recognized, the defendant company was in practical charge of the housing construction project of the defendant association; the defendant company purchased and secured 100% of the business site at the time of recruitment of the members of the defendant association; or the employees of the defendant company knew that at the time of the subscription contract of this case, they purchased 100% of the defendant company's housing construction project; or that at the time of the subscription contract of this case, the defendant company secured 100% of the purchase of land; and the plaintiff made a contract of this case and paid 78,000,000 won in total due to the above illegal acts of the defendant company. Since the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the above 78,00,000,000 won due to the above illegal acts of the defendant company, the defendant company is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff.

(b) Markets:

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant company made an exaggerated advertisement as alleged by the plaintiff, or that the employee of the defendant company was accused as alleged by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant company of the plaintiff

claim against such person shall not be reasonable.

4.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant union of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant company is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.