대여금반환
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the ancillary claim added by the appellate court, shall be amended as follows:
The defendant.
1. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), the basic facts are as follows: (a) housing redevelopment project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”).
The Defendant, a cooperative established and authorized to implement the instant redevelopment project on September 9, 2010 (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project commencement project”). The Defendant’s bid for the selection of B (hereinafter “instant bid”).
B The bid guidelines containing the following contents (hereinafter referred to as “instant bid guidelines”).
After its implementation, the defendant was selected as the successful bidder for the project of this case.
Article 13 (Deposit and Return of Bid Bond) (1) The bidder shall participate in the bidding after depositing the bid bond as follows:
1. Bid bond: 3 billion won. (4) The successful bidder shall not be deemed to have entered into the contract (contract for construction) without good cause. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”).
(2) If the contract does not enter into a contract, the bid bond already paid shall belong to the project owner.
Article 17 (Duties of Successful Bidders) (1) A successful bidder shall conclude a contract in consultation with the ordering person within three months from the date the ordering person notifies from the general meeting of selecting the contractor.
As above, the consultation to conclude this case’s contract is called “instant consultation.”
Provided, That the period may be extended by consultation between the project owner and the successful bidder in extenuating circumstances.
On September 26, 2010, the Defendant decided to select the Plaintiff as the contractor at the extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter referred to as “the first extraordinary meeting”). On October 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, “Around October 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the Plaintiff, borrowed KRW 4,62,348,210 in the aggregate of KRW 1,62,348,210 in the name of the project cost, and KRW 3 billion in the name of the director of the Defendant’s association members (5 million per individual and KRW 600,662,348,210 in the name of the Plaintiff.” At the beginning of the relocation of the Defendant’s association members, the Defendant shall obtain financial loans from the financial institution and repay them under the name of the Defendant.”