beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가단1663

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum for the period from December 20, 2013 to August 12, 2015; and (b).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a reconstruction association which obtained authorization on February 15, 2005 to implement a housing reconstruction project on the land outside Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and 40 parcels.

B. On December 18, 2009, the Plaintiff, as a member of the Defendant’s association, was holding a house within the said reconstruction project zone, and entered into a supply contract with the Defendant that assessed the Plaintiff’s ownership of the housing as KRW 51,450,00 (339,541,000,000 (171,90,000 won for the Plaintiff’s housing owned as the members’ right to the housing owned as the Plaintiff’s housing) and assessed the ownership of the D Apartment No. 103 and No. 1404,37.7 square meters for the said reconstruction project zone (171,908,989 won) to be newly constructed within the said reconstruction project zone as the members of the association.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). C.

On January 29, 201, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting on the ground that there is a need to modify the project site due to the increase of the sale nature and business feasibility of the said reconstruction project site and the increase of 11,248.40 square meters in the area of the site of the project site to 11,248.40 square meters in the adjacent other project sites, and presented the “case of the modification of the approval of the project implementation plan (the modification of the design)” as an agenda item 1.

Around January 14, 2011, the Defendant announced the opening of the special meeting on January 19, 201, and distributed to its members, including the Plaintiff, the content that the design of the apartment sold to the Plaintiff and the alteration of the plan of the apartment unit (37.7 square meters) before and after the alteration (38.2 square meters) to the members, including the Plaintiff, would be changed as described in the attached Table 103, 104, and the following (38.2 square meters), and the Plaintiff attended the said special meeting.

E. The members E, who purchased an apartment with the same area and structure as the apartment of the instant apartment, pointed out the problems of the change of the structure entirely different from the previous two columns located in the main room and the ward in the process of discussing the change of the special meeting design, and the possibility of re-resolution was discussed, and the female members in the name unreconvened with E’s opinion.

Therefore, the director of the design office shall modify the design.