2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Defendant is a reconstruction association which obtained authorization on July 3, 2008 for a reconstruction project of the land ( Address 1 omitted) and ( Address 2 omitted) land as a project implementation district on July 3, 2008, and the Plaintiffs are the owners of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”; and the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s association members as the owners of the real estate in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On February 5, 2010, the Defendant obtained the approval of the management and disposal plan under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and publicly notified its members to enter into a sales contract from August 20, 201 to August 26, 201.

C. The Plaintiffs did not conclude a sales contract between the Defendant and the Defendant within the period of the above sales contract.

D. Article 43(4) and (5) of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provide for cash settlement for those who did not apply for parcelling-out or withdraw, and those who did not conclude a contract for parcelling-out as follows:

Article 43 (Application for Sale, etc.)

(4) Where a member of the association falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the association shall liquidate the buildings and other rights in cash within 150 days from the date he/she falls under such cases. The amount shall be calculated by calculating the arithmetic mean of the values appraised by at least two appraisal business entities recommended by the head

1. An applicant for parcelling-out;

2. Persons who have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out;

3. Persons excluded from objects of parcelling-out under the authorized management and disposal plan.

(5) Mutual aid members shall conclude a sales contract within the period specified by the cooperative after the approval for the management and disposal plan is granted, and paragraph (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis where sales are not concluded.

E. In order to calculate the cash liquidation amount for those who did not conclude a contract for sale in lots including the plaintiffs, the defendant requested an appraisal to the unification corporation and the company company company as an appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "unitization" and "familyization"). The price of each real estate of this case, which is the arithmetic average of the values assessed by the two corporations, is the amount indicated in the column of "cash settlement standard value" as stated in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the standard price for each cash settlement of this case").

F. On May 2010, the Plaintiffs handed over each of the instant real estate to the Defendant to the Defendant during the middle of May 2010, and the ownership transfer registration based on each of the instant real estate was completed in the future of the Defendant.

G. As to each of the instant real property, each of the secured debt amount, such as the attached list No. 3, was set up.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

Under Article 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”), Article 43(5) and (4) of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation, the Defendant is obligated to pay cash settlement money for each real estate of this case to the Plaintiffs, members of the association who did not conclude a contract for sale within the period determined by the Defendant. Article 43(4) of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that the cash settlement money for persons who did not apply for sale shall be calculated by calculating the arithmetic mean of the values appraised by at least two appraisal business entities recommended by the head of the Si/Gun, and the Plaintiffs claim the amount calculated by deducting the secured debt amount of each mortgage listed in the attached Table 3 as liquidation money, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the corresponding amount stated in the “claim amount” column in the attached Table 4, which is the amount

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense

(1) Claim for deduction of interest on moving expenses and moving expenses;

(A) The defendant asserts that the expenses of directors and interest on the moving expenses that the contractor corporation (hereinafter "Scco Construction") paid to the plaintiffs on behalf of the plaintiffs shall be included in the construction expenses that the defendant should pay to Scco Construction, and the defendant shall ultimately bear the same, and shall be deducted from the liquidation money.

The statement of evidence No. 6 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(B) The Defendant asserts that Article 11(2) of the Management and Disposal Plan’s Draft provides that the interest on the director’s expenses and the loan for resettlement shall be deducted from the liquidation amount, and that the interest on the director’s expenses and the loan for resettlement shall be deducted from the liquidation amount.

According to the evidence evidence No. 1, Article 11(2) of the Management and Disposal Plan Standard Bill provides that "a person shall deduct debts, such as interest loan and overdue interest, and expenses incurred in liquidation." However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above fact of recognition alone should deduct the expenses and interest of the defendant's director from the liquidation amount, in light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the relocation loan and director expenses premised on the return are separate concepts, and that the director's expenses were paid to the person who entered into a contract for the sale of cash, other than the person who entered into a contract for the sale of cash."

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

(2) Claim to deduct project costs

The defendant asserts that the total project cost of the defendant's apartment should be deducted from the amount equivalent to the ratio of the assessed value of each of the real estate in this case to the assessed value of the previous apartment in this case.

A cash settlement made to a person who has failed to apply for a parcelling-out under Article 47 of the Urban Improvement Act shall be made in consideration of the value of assets such as land, buildings and other rights and the amount of cash settlement corresponding thereto paid by the partnership to the union members who have not applied for a parcelling-out in order to facilitate the implementation of the project. Accordingly, in calculating the cash settlement amount for the plaintiffs, the amount of cash settlement should be considered to have been borne by the plaintiffs among the expenses of the association's business that occurred until the plaintiffs lose their status as the union members due to the occurrence of a cause for cash settlement.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the plaintiffs did not enter into a contract for sale in lots with the defendant and caused KRW 5,904,366,787, which was the total project cost of the defendant until August 31, 2011 when the plaintiffs lost their membership. The assessed value of the previous assets of the apartment of this case is KRW 148,024,150,000, and the assessed value of the previous assets of this case for each of the real estate of this case can be recognized as having been stated in the column for the assessed value of the previous assets of this case. The assessed value of the previous assets of this case for each of the real estate of this case can be deemed as having been borne by the plaintiff as a member. Thus, each of the corresponding amounts stated in the column for "amount of charges" listed in the separate sheet No. 4 shall be deducted from the liquidation amount of the plaintiffs.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the above amounts to the plaintiffs at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from March 1, 2012 to November 1, 2012, which is the date of this decision, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., from the next day to the date of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to each of the above amounts.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-young (Presiding Judge) and a leap-type cable