2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party.

A. Promotion of a multi-family housing project in Nonparty B

1) Nonparty B established various real estate development companies, such as Jeju, D (ju), E (ju), and Jeju, and practically operated each of the above companies. From around 2001, Nonparty B purchased 300 square meters of land, 214,876 square meters of land, including 39,372 square meters of forest land and its neighboring forest land, miscellaneous land, etc. in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, in the name of each of the above companies.

2) Around that time, B established Nonparty H District Housing Association and I District Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as “the instant association”) and started to implement a collective housing project that newly constructs and sells a total of 2,182 households in the said forest and fields under the name of the Nonparty Union (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”).

B. Conclusion of a contract for a construction project between the non-party partnership and the defendant

(F) Around 2003, the non-party partnership and the company executing the project of this case entered into a contract for construction work with the defendant when the non-party partnership was authorized to establish the project of this case with the competent authority and the approval of the project of this case becomes final and conclusive.

C. Conclusion of an apartment supply contract between the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the appointed parties and the non-party partnership, and a set-price loan, etc.

1) Around 2003, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) entered into an apartment supply agreement with each non-party association.

2) According to the above supply contract, each of the plaintiffs has to pay the down payment in KRW 29 million, and the apartment price, including the down payment, was to be deposited into the national bank account in the name of the defendant (the account number J, hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant's account").

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs received part of the apartment price from the National Bank under their joint and several sureties by each Defendant, and this loan was deposited into the Defendant’s account.

D. The discontinuance of the project of this case and criminal judgment against B

1) From around 2002 to around 2003, B, who is the actual operator of the non-party partnership, applied for the authorization to establish a housing association for the non-party partnership and the modification of a quasi-urban community development plan for the instant project site to the competent authority.

2) However, as a significant portion of the project site of this case is divided into green areas within a quasi-urban district, it was impossible to change the project site of this case to a multi-family housing pursuant to the relevant laws and regulations.In addition, the project site of this case is located within the K zone of the measures for the special preservation of water quality of the sold orchard and the Han River Water is able to obtain approval for a new project for constructing a multi-family housing after being allocated a "sewage quantity" according to the total pollution load control system where Han River Water is in force for water quality management. However, from around 2002 to around 2003, there was no sewage quantity allocated at the time of Gwangju, and thus,

3) For the foregoing reasons, the competent authority rejected all applications for the authorization of the establishment of the housing association and for the modification of the development plan that the non-party association applied for several times as above.

4) Nevertheless, B, who is the actual operator of the non-party union, concluded each of the instant supply contracts with the plaintiffs, etc. as described in paragraph (c) above with hiding these circumstances, and received money as the price for each apartment house.

5) Ultimately, the instant project promoted by the Nonparty Cooperative was not run properly. On July 4, 2011, Suwon District Court Decision 201Dahap93, Suwon-nam Branch 2011. The instant project was impossible as above.

As if it is possible to know that it was possible, the plaintiffs et al. acquired apartment supply proceeds by deceiving them from the plaintiffs et al. were prosecuted as charges of violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. of Specific Minor Offenses (Fraud). On December 28, 2011, the above court found the above charges guilty and sentenced B to seven years of imprisonment, etc.

6) Accordingly, although the Seoul High Court 2012No132 appealed, the appellate court also convicted B of the aforementioned facts charged and sentenced B to 8 years of imprisonment, etc., and the appellate court again appealed by Supreme Court 2013Do2437, but the appeal was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 8 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The argument and judgment of the parties

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A) Even though B, who promoted the instant project from the beginning, knew that the instant project is impossible from the point of view, it committed a tort by deceiving the Plaintiffs as if the instant project could be conducted, and by receiving money from the Plaintiffs as the apartment supply price, and by defrauding it.

In addition, the defendant has a duty of care to prevent or not participate in the act of deception, such as B, in the actual process of the project implementation of the project of this case, and to the defendant who has actually exercised the right to manage and supervise B, etc. in the actual process of the project implementation of this case.

B) Nevertheless, the defendant violated the above duty of care and committed the above deception in B.

Facilitating and aiding this.

C) Therefore, the defendant is a joint illegal actor who aided and abetted illegal acts by deceiving the plaintiffs in B, and is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs. The amount of damages is the sum of the 29 million won paid by each plaintiffs as the down payment for apartment supply price and the amount equivalent to the interest paid for the loans granted from the national bank in the name of each plaintiff, and the amount is as shown in the sum of the attached Table.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to pay each of the money stated in the aggregate sheet in the separate sheet and each of the delay damages to the plaintiffs as compensation for damages.

2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

A) It is doubtful whether the Plaintiffs paid KRW 29 million to the Defendant as the actual apartment supply price, and whether the Plaintiffs paid interest on the loan.

B) When the project of this case is approved and promoted, the Defendant is only a contractor who is also supplied with construction works related to the project of this case, and it does not bear any duty of care for the Plaintiffs.

C) In addition, the Defendant did not deceiving the Defendants by any public offering with B. Rather, the Defendant is the Defendant who suffered the largest monetary damage due to the said deception and the discontinuance of the instant business.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 760 (3) of the Civil Code provides that an aided or an aided person shall be deemed a collaborative act, thereby imposing the liability of the joint tortfeasor on the aided person and the aided person.

Inasmuch as the duty to act refers to all direct and indirect acts that are easy, and includes cases where a person who is obligated to act does not take various measures to prevent it, the duty to act is a legal duty to act. As such, the duty to act is not included in mere morality or religious duty, but is not a legal duty to act, and the legal duty to act is merely a private law, and the public law is not a private law, and there is no legal duty to act. As such, the duty to act under the good faith principle, social rules, or sound reasoning also has legal duty not to protect the legal interest of the other party and to protect the legal interest of the other party or to prevent harm to the other party, such as in a special trust relationship or contractual relationship, or in a situation where it is acknowledged that there is no special duty to act under the good faith principle, social rules, or sound reasoning that there is no legal duty to act in relation to the other party’s legal interest to protect or prevent harm to the other party’s legal interest.

On the other hand, where a regional housing association has obtained approval of a project plan from the competent authority to jointly implement a housing construction project with a contractor after obtaining authorization to establish the association, the regional housing association and the City Corporation may jointly assume external liability pursuant to the Housing Act and subordinate statutes as a joint project proprietor. Furthermore, it may be held liable as a member of the association under the Civil Act under the relationship of a business agreement. In such cases, the obligation

It can be seen that a regional housing association also bears the burden of construction works. However, when a regional housing association enters into a contract for construction works and a contract for construction works at the pre-authorization stage, it shall be the authority and responsibility of the regional housing association to recruit members, publicize and manage public relations, authorization for establishment of a cooperative, purchase of a project site, management of payment to the association members, etc., and where the local housing association and the Si housing association have decided to support and cooperate with the local housing association in order to supplement the lack of expertise and financial capacity after authorization for establishment, it shall not be a joint project owner under the Housing Act, but shall not be jointly responsible under the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8709, Apr. 26, 2012).

2) Determination

A) If the purport of the entire pleadings is combined with the instant case’s return to the instant association, i.e., the Defendant entered into a contract for construction related to the instant project before obtaining authorization for the establishment of the association, and thereafter the Nonparty association did not obtain authorization for the establishment of the association, and the instant project was interrupted without obtaining approval for the establishment of the association, and (ii) the Defendant and the Nonparty association’s exercise of the project executor and the executor’s exercise of the project are determined to be the cooperatives and the Nonparty F, respectively, and the Defendant merely provides that “the construction of the building facility is responsible for the construction of the building facility and support for the project promotion, authorization, and permission work” (see Article 2 of the above contract). (iii) Meanwhile, the Defendant borrowed apartment price from the national bank from the national bank, and Article 13 of the above contract provides that the Defendant lends the purchase price of the project site to the implementer of the instant case and made a provisional registration as to part of the project site under the name of the Defendant’s name to secure it.

Although provisional registration has been made on a part of the site for a business, it is reasonable to deem that it is merely a part of the project in order to support or cooperate with the non-party partnership or the main executor's agent in order to supplement the expertise and financial ability of the latter, or to secure the status and interest as the primary contractor in connection with the project of this case in which considerable expenses and effort are to be paid. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, inasmuch as the defendant cannot be deemed to have satisfied the requirements for establishment of an association under the Civil Act by forming a partnership with the non-party partnership or the enforcement agent, beyond the degree that it is jointly achieved with the non-party partnership or the (State) executor, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the non-party partnership or the main executor is liable for the duty and responsibility as the joint executor, or any duty of care corresponding to the joint executor, even if other evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is considered.

In addition, if the non-party union or (State)F did not properly notify the plaintiffs that it could not implement the project of this case in violation of the duty of disclosure in the course of union recruitment, etc., and thereafter, if the plaintiffs suffered property damage due to the impossibility of the project of this case, the non-party union or (State) may be held liable for damages. However, as seen earlier, the defendant who did not have been involved in the project of this case in order to secure the status of the primary contractor is not in a special position to protect the legal interests or prevent any infringement thereof in relation to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for the duty of disclosure to investigate, manage, and supervise whether the non-party union or non-party union, etc. has performed the duty of disclosure.

Therefore, under different premise, the plaintiffs' assertions on the premise that the defendant bears any duty of care or duty of disclosure in relation to the plaintiffs are added to the remaining points.

There is no reason to consider.

B) Furthermore, it is difficult to conclude that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs recognized the fact that the Defendant could not implement the instant project. Rather, as seen earlier, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed a significant portion of the apartment price that the Plaintiffs should pay from a national bank, and leased a large amount of funds to the non-party cooperative, etc., and the Defendant appears to have high investment prospects at the time when the Plaintiffs entered into an apartment supply contract with the non-party cooperative, etc., and the Defendant did not appear to have been aware that the instant project is impossible or that there was a high risk of failure. The Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit even in this regard).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Young-chul

Judges Kim Dong-hee