The Defendant Red 3-dong 27 Rebuilding Housing Association shall pay to the Plaintiff Yek-si Order the amount of KRW 3,321,250 per annum from August 22, 1998 to December 24, 2003; the amount of KRW 20 per annum from that following the date to the date of full payment; the amount of KRW 3,290,650 per annum to the Plaintiff Ye-si; the amount of KRW 3,290,650 per annum from October 23, 1998 to December 24, 2003; and the amount of KRW 20 per annum from that following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals against the defendant Hong 3 Dong 3-dong 27-dong 27-dong 27 and the appeal against defendant Tae Young-young are dismissed, respectively.

3. The costs of lawsuit incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant red 3 Dong 27 building association are ten minutes of the total of the first and second instances, and their nine minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, the remainder is assessed against the above defendant, and the costs of appeal against the defendant Tae Young Co., Ltd. shall be assessed against the plaintiffs.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 8, Gap evidence 10-6, 10, 14, Gap evidence 15, 32, 34, Eul evidence 3 through 7, and there is no counter-proof.

A. Defendant Hong-dong 3, 27-dong 27 (hereinafter the Defendant Association) under the Housing Construction Promotion Act is a reconstruction association composed of 146 members as of October 22, 1994, with the approval of establishment from the head of Seodaemun-gu on October 22, 1994 for the purpose of apartment reconstruction on the 3-dong 27-dong 3, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul under the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and is a reconstruction association consisting of 146 members. Defendant Tae-young Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Defendant Company) is an agent for the execution and supply of the above reconstruction project, and the Plaintiffs are members who purchase apartment houses of 28 square meters (exclusive area 66.096 square meters) from the Defendant Association.

B. On November 24, 1994, An Ansan Hospital, the president of the Defendant Cooperatives, without going through a resolution of the board of directors, entered into a contract for construction work with the Defendant Company as a contractor for the instant reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant provisional contract”) on behalf of the Defendant Cooperatives, and the main contents thereof are as follows.

(1) The Defendant Company lends all expenses necessary for the implementation of the project (such as safety diagnosis expenses, design expenses, supervision expenses, appraisal expenses, appraisal expenses, survey expenses, registration expenses for preservation of general supply, union operation expenses, etc.) and executes construction works for building facilities, etc.

(2) In addition to the above loan of expenses and the construction work performance liability, the Defendant Company is not subject to civil and criminal liability arising within the partnership.

(3) The average construction cost per unit of a building facility (such as an apartment, commercial building, and underground parking lot) constructed by the Defendant Company shall be KRW 1,800,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the construction cost shall be calculated by multiplying the total floor area of the building facility approved by the administrative agency.

(4) If the standard construction cost is increased during the principal project period prior to the general sale, the construction cost shall be increased according to the standard construction cost increase rate, and if the base team is exposed during the construction from the underground base destruction, the design shall be modified and the construction cost shall be increased accordingly with the approval of the resident supervision at the site designated by the Defendant Union.

(5) In the event of occurrence of national taxes and local taxes arising from the implementation of reconstruction, if it is obviously liable for tax payment to the defendant association under tax law, it shall be borne by the members of the defendant association

(6) At the time of approval of a project plan, the provisional contract automatically succeeds to this contract.

C. After that, on December 15, 1994, the Defendant Union opened the first general meeting of cooperative members (hereinafter “the first general meeting of cooperative members”), but at the time, 123 of the 134 union members were present, and the Defendant Union decided to select the Si/Gun/Gu as the Defendant Company with the consent of 118 members.

D. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on November 22, 1995, the president of the cooperative of the Defendant Union requested the Defendant Company to increase the construction cost on the grounds of the standard construction cost, the change of soil, the change of soil quality, and the addition of water supply and sewerage stuff construction, etc., and entered into a modified contract on behalf of the Defendant Union, which requires the Defendant Company to increase the average construction cost (hereinafter “the modified contract”). The main contents are as follows.

(1) The unit cost of construction per square year shall be increased by 2,140,000 won (excluding value-added tax, but excluding value-added tax on a national housing scale). The construction cost shall include sewage stuffing construction costs in the civil works and in the complex.

(2) The defendant company cannot request the increase of the standard construction cost or the incidental construction cost incurred from apartment construction construction and the increase of the construction cost incurred from derivative construction.

E. After that, on November 24, 1995, the Defendant Union obtained the approval from the head of Seodaemun-gu, the head of the Gu for the project plan that constructs the 3rd and 214 households of the 18th and upper floors above the 214th and upper floors above the 1995 apartment, opening the 21st and upper floors of the 196-3.21st of March, 196, and opened the 2nd meeting of the 2nd members of the Association (hereinafter referred to as the 2nd general meeting of members of the Association),

F. From January 16, 1996, the Defendant Company commenced the new construction of the instant reconstruction apartment and completed it in the middle half of 1998, and was notified by the head of Seodaemun-gu on July 31, 1998 of the usage inspection processing by the head of Seodaemun-gu.

G. Meanwhile, after the completion of the construction work, the Defendant Company filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Partnership at the Seog branch of the Seoul District Court seeking the payment of the construction cost under the instant modified contract with 99 Gohap3471, which was awarded a favorable judgment on May 27, 199, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 25 of the same year.

H. Payment of the plaintiffs' charges

(1) The share of a cooperative member shall be the amount calculated by deducting the share of the cooperative member from the share of the cooperative member, and the share of the cooperative member shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the value of the previous building and land of the cooperative member by the proportion (the amount calculated by dividing the amount obtained by subtracting the total expenditure from the total revenue of the cooperative member by the previous total appraisal value of

(2) The proportion calculated in the fund management plan of the Defendant Union, as of February 8, 1996, is 29%, and the calculation details thereof (23,456,606,394 (total revenues) -21,209,65,074 (total expenditures) ±7,747,946,00 (total amount of previous appraisal by a partner).

(3) The Defendant Union prepared a detailed calculation basis for the shares of each association member in accordance with the calculation method of the shares of the association members and notified the same to the union members. According to the above notification, the Plaintiff Jeong Tae-ok paid the shares and the late payment charges for the shares on August 23, 1999 to the Defendant Union, respectively. The amount and calculation details of the shares are as follows.

(A) The Plaintiff’s rank

분양받은 28평형(전용면적 66.096㎡)의 분양금액이 103,856,000원이고 종전감정평가총액이 50,250,000원이므로 원고 임병순의 지분은 14,573,000원(≒50,250,000×비례율 0.29)이 되며 따라서 원고 임병순의 부담금은 89,283,000원(103,856,000－14,573,000)이 된다.

(B) Plaintiff Jeong Tae-ok

분양받은 28평형(전용면적 66.096㎡)의 분양금액이 108,861,000원이고 종전감정평가총액이 48,450,000원이므로 원고 정태옥의 지분은 14,000,000원(≒48,450,000×비례율 0.29)이 되며 따라서 원고 정태옥의 부담금은 94,861,000원(108,861,000－14,000,000)이 된다.

(i) The articles of incorporation of the defendant cooperative relating to this case are as follows:

(1) Construction costs and expenses incurred in implementing a project shall be procured by the contractor pursuant to a separate agreement and the detailed implementation thereof shall be governed by the articles of incorporation and the participating contract (Article V(2)).

(2) Matters concerning the amendment of the articles of incorporation (a modification of the articles of incorporation), the selection and amendment of the contractor, and matters to be borne by members other than those stipulated in the budget shall undergo a resolution of the General Assembly (Article 15, Paragraphs 1, 3 and 6).

(3) A general meeting shall be held with the attendance of a majority of the members and shall be resolved with the consent of a majority of the members present (Article 16(1)).

(4) The board of directors shall act on behalf of the board of directors for the amount or collection method of the charge (Article 21(3)).

(5) The funds to implement the project shall be the land financed by the partner, the funds raised by the contractor, the contributions of the partner, and the loans and subsidies necessary for the reconstruction of multi-family housing (Articles of Incorporation 38).

(6) The Cooperative may impose and collect expenses incurred in implementing the project on its members, provided that the amount of charges shall be determined by the board of directors (Article 39(1)).

(7) The selling price of apartment houses (including housing share) among the construction facilities scheduled to be sold is the price of the government's cost-free operation system (which seems to refer to the guidelines for the implementation of the housing unit sale price system; hereinafter referred to as the cost-free operation guidelines) (Article 47).

[The Guidelines for the Implementation of the Won-dong System refers to a system that determines the sale price of housing to link it with the housing site cost and the construction cost (including the reasonable profit), and at the time, if at least 85 square meters (25.7 square meters) for the exclusive area (25.7 square meters or less) such as the apartment unit sold by the plaintiffs, it was set at KRW 1,580,000 per square year, and KRW 1,770,000 per square year, if not less than 15 stories are below 1

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant company asserts that the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiffs is unlawful, since the objection against the management and disposal plan under the Urban Redevelopment Act as the principal safety defense is filed by administrative litigation.

The lawsuit of this case is related to the reconstruction association regulated by the Multi-Unit Residential Building Act and the Housing Construction Promotion Act, and is different from the redevelopment association under the Urban Redevelopment Act, which has the character of the administrative agency, and thus, can seek restitution of unjust enrichment or damages arising from tort against the reconstruction association and the construction company as a civil lawsuit. Therefore, the defendant company's assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on a claim for return of unjust enrichment regarding construction expenses

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the provisional contract of this case and the modified contract of this case entered into between the defendant union and the defendant company have the following grounds for invalidation. Thus, the defendants asserted that each of the plaintiffs should return to each of the plaintiffs the share of the plaintiff's 1,770,000 won paid in excess of the legitimate amount (the amount calculated on the basis of KRW 1,410,00 per ordinary day for the part except the underground parking space, and the amount calculated on the basis of KRW 1,410,00 per ordinary day for the underground parking lot) pursuant to the invalid contract as above.

(1) The Defendant Union and the Defendant Company set the ordinary construction cost as KRW 1,800,00 in the instant provisional contract, but increased the construction cost to KRW 2,140,00 in the instant modified contract. This is null and void since the Defendant Union and the Defendant Company violated the guidelines for the implementation of the cost-free operation system, which is a mandatory provision of KRW 1,770,000, which is a mandatory provision of KRW 16 and above the 25.7 square meters in exclusive use area.

Furthermore, in accordance with the above cost-based implementation guidelines, the portion except for underground parking lots was set at KRW 1,770,00 per square year for the general buyers, and the portion of underground parking lots was set at KRW 1,410,00 per square year for the members of the association, including the portion of underground parking lots, and the portion of the underground parking lots was supplied to the members of the association for KRW 2,140,000 per square year, thereby causing a imbalance between the members who invested in the shares of the association and the members who invested in the shares of the association, rather than the general buyers. As such, Article 47 of the articles of association aims to prevent the price difference between the members of the association and the general buyers,

(2) According to Article 15(6) of the articles of association of the defendant cooperative, matters that are to be borne by members other than those stipulated in the budget shall be subject to a resolution of the general meeting of partners. Thus, in order to determine the ordinary cost exceeding the guidelines for the implementation of the above cost-dynamic system as in the provisional contract of this case, as in the provisional contract of this case, the defendant cooperative must undergo a resolution of the general meeting of partners pursuant to the articles of association. The defendant cooperative concluded the provisional contract of this case with the defendant company at will without the resolution or consent of the general meeting of partners. After the execution of the provisional contract of this case, the first general meeting of partners of this case opened after the execution of the provisional contract of this case did not make any resolution on the selection of the contractor and the construction cost. Accordingly, the contract for construction work set at KRW 1,800,000 per ordinary construction cost per November 24, 19

(3) In addition, on November 22, 1995, the Defendant Union and the Defendant Company raised the ordinary construction cost at KRW 2,140,000 from the instant modified contract, but the said modified contract is null and void for the following reasons.

(A) The conclusion of the instant modified contract with the Defendant Company constitutes a change in the first resolution on the apportionment of rebuilding cost at the stage of rebuilding execution, and thus the Defendant Company’s association’s offering of a general meeting to increase the cost of a usual project as in the said modified contract. The Defendant Company entered into a modified contract with the Defendant Company at its own discretion without the resolution or consent of the general meeting of the members of the association. The Defendant Company did not make any resolution on the increase in the construction cost after the conclusion of the modified contract at the second association meeting of this case, which was opened after the conclusion of the modified contract.

(B) Although the Defendant Company increased the construction cost on the ground that it should change the existing construction method due to the discovery of base return, etc., according to the instant provisional contract, the construction cost should be increased by undergoing design modification procedures in the event of detection of base return according to the instant provisional contract. Meanwhile, according to the government’s guidelines for supervision performance, if the construction cost is increased by design modification, the Defendant Company should undergo the process of design modification with the confirmation of supervision to increase the construction cost. However, the Defendant Company did not undergo the process of design modification with the confirmation of supervision.

(C) According to Article 44(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, where a person intends to modify the authorized contents, he/she shall obtain authorization from the head of Seodaemun-gu, the competent authority, and thus, did not obtain authorization from the head of the competent authority.

(b) Markets:

(1) Whether the guidelines for the implementation of the cost-free operation system are violated

In addition, Article 47 of the articles of incorporation of the Defendant Union to the effect that the sale price for the members of the instant provisional contract and the modified contract violates the guidelines for the implementation of the cost-free operation system is invalid, and the scope of the application is defined as a house sold to the general public by the housing association (Article 2 (1) 2 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the cost-free operation system). Since the housing directly sold to the members of the housing association as in the instant case is not applicable to the housing directly sold to the members of the housing association, as in the instant provisional contract and the modified contract, it shall not be deemed that the Defendant Union violated the guidelines for the implementation of the cost-free operation system by setting the construction cost in excess of the upper limit of the construction cost under the guidelines for the implementation of the cost-free operation system. Moreover, as seen earlier, Article 47 of the articles of incorporation of the Defendant Union to the effect that the sale price for the members of the Defendant Union and the general buyers should also comply with the guidelines for the implementation of the cost-free operation system. Therefore, the Plaintiffs

(2) The validity of the instant provisional contract

(A) Facts of recognition

In full view of the whole purport of arguments in evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, 3, and 5, the defendant Union made, by a resolution of the board of directors, a project participation proposal to five construction companies, such as 20, 20, 22, and 5, but no participation proposal was made from the above construction companies, and the central construction submitted a project participation proposal but rejected it by convening the board of directors on Nov. 2, 1994. ② The defendant Union's reconstruction project did not have the number of buildings, and submitted a proposal to participate in the project with 1,80,000 won per day among the construction companies without any malicious condition, the defendant Union decided to hold a meeting of 10,000 won per 1,00 won per 19,000 won per 3, and it did not know the fact that the president of the defendant Union concluded the contract with the 10th 19,000 won per 14,000 won per 10,000 won per 14.

(b) the sales board;

In this case, the contract price is higher than KRW 1,770,00, which is the standard in the articles of incorporation of the defendant association. However, in the situation where there is no other construction company's application for rebuilding participation, and there is no other company's business participant that specified the construction cost per square year, the defendant association's business participation proposal of the defendant company that stated the contract price per square year is accepted at the first general meeting of union members and with the consent of a majority of union members present at the meeting of union members, and the defendant company is selected as the contractor of the defendant company, it is reasonable to view that the contract of this case was ratified with the above contract price based on the contract price per square year (Article 47 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant association, which is set differently for the contract price per square year, shall be deemed to have been substantially modified

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the contract of this case is null and void is without merit.

(3) The validity of the instant modified contract

(A) Whether a legitimate member meeting was completed

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, and there is no counter-proof.

① On November 15, 1995, the Defendant Company requested the Defendant Union to increase the construction cost at KRW 2,176,000 per square year on the grounds of the standard construction cost, the increase in soil bats by construction method, the increase in soil quality, and the addition of water supply and drainage facilities construction works.

② Accordingly, on November 17, 1995, the Defendant Union held a board of directors to discuss it. The board of directors held that the above board of directors reported the occurrence of the causes of the increase in the construction cost and the directors of the Defendant Union expressed opposition to the increase in the construction cost. However, the Defendant Union board of directors did not recognize the existence of factors causing the increase in the construction cost requested by the Defendant Company, and decided that the scope of increase shall be between KRW 2,050,000 and KRW 2,150,000, and thereafter, the Defendant Company shall negotiate with the Defendant Company to the effect that the request for the increase in the construction cost should not be made even if there are factors causing the increase in the construction cost.

③ On November 22, 1995, four (4) presidents, etc. of the Defendant Cooperative increased the unit cost of the Defendant Cooperative and the construction cost to KRW 2,140,000 per square year (excluding value-added tax and value-added tax, a single unit of national housing scale) and entered into the instant modified contract with the content that there is no discount of construction cost.

④ After that, on February 8, 1996, the Defendant Mutual Aid Association established a calculation method of cooperative shares, and calculated the fund management plan under the above modified contract, including construction expenses, and then notified each cooperative member of the calculation details of cooperative shares after calculating the proportional rate that serves as the basis for calculating cooperative shares based on the aforementioned calculation method.

⑤ On March 21, 1996, the Defendant Union held the second general meeting of partners of this case for obtaining approval of the instant modified contract, and 124 members of the Plaintiff Union were present at the time, and the president of the Defendant Union, the president of the Defendant Company, and the head of the headquarters of the Defendant Company explained about the factors constituting the construction cost. However, upon the request of some of the members for explanation on the above construction cost and filing an application for the provisional disposition of suspension of sale and the non-Confidence of the partnership’s officers, the Defendant Union held voting by making only four members refuse to increase the construction cost and suspend construction work or suspend the sale of the building volume and number, and as a result, the Defendant Union decided that only four members of the Plaintiff refused to sell the building cost, and the majority of the members of the Plaintiff passed by the president of the Union and completed the general meeting of partners after the drawing up of the building volume and number.

6. On the other hand, members including the plaintiffs entered into a sales contract after the general meeting of partners in accordance with the details of calculation of charges by union members based on the above modified contract.

(ii) the board;

According to the above facts, it is difficult to view that the second general meeting of partners on March 21, 1996 passed a resolution on the construction cost under the modified contract of this case at the general meeting of partners.

However, the defendant company and the defendant company agreed to increase the construction cost when the standard construction cost was increased at the time of the conclusion of the instant provisional contract, and when the base team was exposed during the underground base destruction work, according to the articles of incorporation of the defendant association, the board of directors is authorized to act on behalf of the general meeting with respect to the increase or collection method of the union members' charges, and the defendant association decided to hold the board of directors on November 17, 1995 to reduce the construction cost, and the specific authority to conclude the contract is delegated to four persons such as the president of the association, and the fact that the representative entrusted with the authority to conclude the contract concluded the instant modified contract with the defendant association increased the construction cost is as seen earlier. Thus, the increase in the construction cost under the instant modified contract is valid even if there was no resolution or approval at the general meeting of the union members (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da53803, 53810, Jun. 10, 2003)

(B) Whether the construction cost was unfairly increased or not

9 No. 15, Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 8-1 to 9 Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 10-1 and 2, the defendant association received a notice of the result of its prior decision from the head of Seodaemun-gu on January 12, 1995, and the defendant association received an application for subsequent change of construction cost on April 26, 1995. The defendant association entered the 9-19-2's application form for subsequent change of construction cost to 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-1's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-1's 9-1's 1's 1's 9-2'

According to the above facts, the reason for the increase of construction cost in the provisional contract of this case is limited to the discovery of base construction cost and underground ground-breaking work, and in particular, even though the contract was agreed to modify the construction after obtaining approval from the supervision, the defendant company requested construction cost reduction on the ground of the discovery of base teams and the change of soil blasing construction before the commencement of construction work on the regular basis (the supervision was not commenced before the commencement of construction). Accordingly, the defendant union did not object to the request of the remaining defendant company that did not object to the disadvantage due to delay of construction, etc., and concluded the modified contract of this case where the construction cost increase without any specific objection to the request of the remaining defendant company that did not raise the construction cost. In light of these circumstances, in comparison with the agreement of the provisional contract of this case, among the items which are the construction cost required by the defendant company, there was a combination of items requiring the increase and unnecessary items.

However, even if the defendant company made an unreasonable demand to the defendant company as to the reason for the project cost reduction, as seen earlier, so long as the defendant company entered into the instant modified contract with the defendant company through a resolution of the board of directors, such contract is effective and shall not be deemed null and void.

(C) Whether the increase in the construction cost is authorized by the competent authority

According to the plaintiffs' assertion that the contract for the modification of this case is null and void, Article 44(1) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 42(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when applying for authorization for the establishment of a reconstruction association, the general meeting minutes and association presidents' consent, association agreement jointly signed by all union members, business plan, documents proving the requirements for reconstruction resolution shall be submitted to obtain authorization for the establishment, and it does not stipulate that the contract for the construction or modification with the construction company shall be subject to authorization of the competent market, etc.

(D) Ultimately, the grounds for the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant modified contract is null and void are not recognized. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ claim for restitution of unjust enrichment premised on the invalidity of the said contract is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim for damages

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that the defendants should pay the amount equivalent to that between the plaintiffs by deceiving the members of the defendant association as if the defendant company conspired with the executives of the defendant association and the members of the association to increase the ordinary construction cost of KRW 2,140,00,00, although there is no new base factor in the construction cost, such as there is no new base factor in the construction cost.

(b) Markets:

In collusion with the executives of the Defendant Company, it is difficult to recognize the above assertion by each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Nos. 17, which appears to conform to the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Defendant Company deceivings members as if there were factors causing construction cost in collusion with the executives of the Defendant Company, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it.

However, according to the above recognition, the defendant company requested the defendant company to increase the construction cost on the ground of the increase in standard construction cost after the conclusion of the provisional contract of this case, the discovery of new rocks, etc. In light of the provisions of the provisional contract of this case, among these contents, whether the increase occurred after the provisional contract of this case was included in doubtful items. However, the board of directors and the general meeting of the defendant company can easily agree on the part of the defendant company's construction cost due to lack of expertise and a heat network for continuing construction. However, considering that the contract of this case between the defendant company and the defendant company is formed as a contract under private law, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant company caused the defendant company to have concluded the modified contract of this case by deceiving the defendant union or its members.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4. Determination on a claim for return of unjust enrichment regarding value-added tax

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that since they did not have any obligation to pay the value-added tax because they purchased apartment buildings below national housing scale exempt from the value-added tax, they are also obligated to pay the value-added tax by including the value-added tax in the total construction cost and by imposing the charge accordingly. Thus, the defendants claim that the plaintiffs should return the amount corresponding to the value-added tax paid by the plaintiffs as unjust enrichment.

(b) Markets:

(1) Determination on Defendant Company

(A) The defendant company is obligated to collect value-added tax on housing construction services exceeding national housing scale not exempt from value-added tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act among the construction services provided by it, while the plaintiffs were not legally obligated to pay value-added tax on the purchase price of apartment buildings exceeding national housing scale. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant company did not have any legal obligation to pay value-added tax on the purchase price of apartment buildings. In full view of the above purport of the argument in the inquiry report to the head of Seodaemun-gu in the judgment below, in light of the above purport of the fact-finding, the defendant company should recognize the fact that the value-added tax calculated by multiplying the building and commercial building size subject to value-added tax by 214,00 won per average construction cost of 2,140,000 won and the commercial building size of the building and the commercial building, 520,476,536 won are shared by all members in accordance with the calculation method as seen earlier, without distinguishing whether members

(B) According to the above facts, even if there is the value-added tax collected in excess of each household, from the standpoint of the defendant company, there is no excess amount in view of the total amount of value-added tax to be collected after the receipt by the defendant company. Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant company unjust enrichment amount of value-added tax

(2) Determination as to the defendant union

(A) On February 8, 1996, the Defendant Union decided the proportion of all union members by including value-added tax in the total construction cost regardless of the usual number of union members sold in lots. The Defendant Union held the 2nd general meeting of union members on March 21 of the same year to obtain approval of the details of calculating contributions pursuant to the above proportional ratio. However, the above general meeting of union members did not regard the construction cost raised from the modified contract as the end of the closing, floor and unit drawing, and the union members paid their contributions according to the amount of contributions as determined by the board of directors. Accordingly, even if the determination of contributions by the board of directors of the Defendant Union was made through the delegation of the general meeting of the Defendant Union and the articles of association, the Defendant Union did not notify the union members of the fact that the non-value-added tax liability is imposed upon the association members who did not have any value-added tax liability when calculating the contributions by each union members pursuant to the method determined by the Defendant Union, and the portion of the Defendant Union did not bear any value-added tax liability for the Plaintiffs association members.

(B) Amount of return of unjust enrichment

Therefore, the defendant union is obligated to return the amount of value-added tax paid by the plaintiffs without any legal ground, and thereby, the plaintiffs are damaged.

The amount of value-added tax to be refunded to the defendant association shall be calculated by deducting the value-added tax from the amount of the contributions that the plaintiffs properly pay after deducting them from the contributions actually paid by the plaintiffs.

First of all, 20,689,178,538 costs (i.e., construction cost of KRW 17,170,912,740 + Other expenses of KRW 3,518,265,798) that exclude value-added tax, if the proportion is to be calculated again, 35.7% [=(total income of KRW 23,456,606,394-20,689,178,538)] of the total appraisal amount of members ± total appraisal amount of KRW 7,747,946,00, and less than three decimal places];

다음으로 위 비례율을 기준으로 원고들의 분담금을 다시 계산하면, 원고 임병순은 분양받은 28평형의 분양금액이 103,856,000원이고, 종전감정평가총액이 50,250,000원이므로 원고 임병순의 지분은 17,939,250원(=50,250,000원×0.357)이 되며, 따라서 부담금은 85,916,750원(=103,856,000원―17,939,250원)이 되고, 원고 정태옥은 분양받은 28평형의 분양금액이 108,861,000원이고 종전감정평가총액이 48,450,000원이므로 원고 정태옥의 지분은 17,296,650원(≒48,450,000원×0.357)이 되며, 따라서 부담금은 91,570,350원(=108,861,000원―17,296,650원)이 된다.

Therefore, the amount of KRW 3,321,250 out of the 89,283,00 of the contribution actually paid by the Plaintiff Jeong-ok (=89,238,00 won - 85,916,750 won) and the amount of KRW 3,290,650 out of the contribution paid by the Plaintiff Tae-ok (=94,861,000 won -91,570 won -91,570,350 won) is the amount of value-added tax paid without any obligation.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, from August 22, 1998, which is the date of payment of contributions to the plaintiff's 3,321,250 won and its amount, the defendant union's 5% per annum from August 22, 1998 to December 24, 2003, which is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to pay contributions to the defendant union, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and 3,290,650 won per annum from the date of payment of contributions to the defendant union, and 3,290,650 won per annum from October 23, 1998, which is the date of payment of contributions to the defendant union, and the remaining part of the plaintiffs' appeal against the defendant union against the defendant union is dismissed as it has no reason to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defendant union and the remaining part of the plaintiff's remaining part of the appeal against the defendant union.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)