2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. In the indication column of the party’s indication column of the first instance judgment, the “Defendant Creging Housing Association” shall be corrected to the “Defendant Creging Apartment Zone 1” “Defendant Creging Housing Association”.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 5% interest per annum from September 30, 2005 to the service date of the written application for conciliation of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments to the Defendant’s assertion, and thus, the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the value-added tax in this case is reflected in the sale price of an apartment exceeding the national housing scale in the apartment in this case, and submitted as evidence the evidence Nos. 13 and 4 of the evidence. However, the above Nos. 13-1 through 4 of the evidence Nos. 13 stated that, as at the time of selling an apartment complex to the general public, each of the above public notice states that the value-added tax is included in the publicly notified price of an apartment complex exceeding the national housing scale. However, the value-added tax in each of the above public notice states that the value-added tax on the supply of an apartment (the reconstruction association collects and pays it from the buyer to the buyer who is supplied with the apartment), that is, the value-added tax on the supply of an apartment complex that is the object of the apartment complex that exceeds the national housing scale, as the construction business operator collects value-added tax (the value-added tax is collected from the reconstruction association supplied with the service and reflects the Defendant’s assertion that the apartment construction business operator is in excess of the national housing scale in this case 1 or 4.

B. In addition, when the general meeting of the management and disposal of this case approves the management and disposal plan proposal of this case, the apartment size of the association members was not determined, and even if the apartment size was allocated to the association members by electronic lottery thereafter, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as a waiver of the exemption benefit of value-added tax which will be naturally granted to the association members who will purchase national housing scale apartment units in the future, and it cannot be viewed as a violation of the good faith principle with recognizing the problems of the resolution of cost sharing, and allowing the plaintiffs who agreed with the resolution of this case to claim the return of unjust enrichment of this case, without hearing the proper explanation as to the contents of the resolution of cost sharing that would be contrary to equity

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall be accepted in its entirety on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all appeals of the defendant are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

【Plaintiff List omitted】

Judges Cho Young-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim U.S.-U.S. type