A. Defendant registered general construction company shall pay to Plaintiff 1 420,000,000, 130,000,000 won to Plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from February 27, 2009 to July 17, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. A housing site creation project partnership of Defendant Samsung 2 District Group shall implement the procedure to change the name of the owner on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay as to the portion of 2,556 out of each land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay listed in the attached list of paragraphs (1), (2), and (9) and the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay listed in paragraph (5) of the same list to the name of Defendant

2. The total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendants.

3. The above Section 1. A above may be provisionally executed.

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

After borrowing KRW 30 million from Plaintiff 1, the Defendant Company agreed to settle the principal and interest amount of KRW 420 million with the Plaintiff as well as 420 million. Under the agreement, the Defendant Company concluded a sales contract with the Defendant Company to sell 247 square meters in lieu of the payment of the borrowed money out of the land allotted in recompense for development outlay in attached Table 10 among the land to be paid from the Defendant Cooperative pursuant to the instant contract. Meanwhile, while the Defendant Company borrowed the borrowed money from Plaintiff 2 several times, it decided to settle the borrowed money at KRW 130 million with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Company concluded a sales contract with the Defendant Company to sell 100 square meters out of the land allotted in recompense for development outlay in attached Table 3 among the land allotted in recompense for development outlay that the Defendant Company would receive from the Defendant Cooperative in lieu of the payment of the borrowed money. Since the Defendant Company sold the land secured in recompense for development outlay in attached Table 10,23 to Nonparty 1, 233, the Plaintiffs were to have been selected from each of the Plaintiffs Company and the Defendant Corporation’s auction.

B. Determination

1) Plaintiff 1’s claim

Where an executor of the rearrangement project has designated a land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay before a replotting disposition and disposed of it to a third party, if the purchaser first satisfies any of the requirements listed in the register of land delivery or the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay, the purchaser may oppose the other double assignees the acquisition of rights, as well as the acquisition of rights to use and profit from the relevant land, and if the seller has sold the land in recompense of development recompense on the next day after the public announcement of the disposition of replotting, the seller's obligation to the other buyer as a seller at the time of changing the name of the owner in the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development recompense of development recompense in the future. (See Supreme Court Decision 98Da36207 delivered on October

In light of the overall purport of the pleadings, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 7-3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, Eul evidence 8-6, 12-4, 5, Eul evidence 15-1, 2, and 16-1 through 4, the defendant company borrowed 300,000,000 won from the plaintiff for the purpose of using it as the construction fund of this case; the defendant company borrowed 30,000,000 won from the owner of the development recompense land of this case; the defendant company purchased 30,000,000 won from the non-party 2; the defendant company purchased 30,000,000 won from the plaintiff for the purpose of using it as the construction fund of this case; the defendant company purchased 30,000,000 won from the non-party 2; the defendant company purchased 30,000,000 won from the plaintiff on December 30, 2002.

According to the above facts and the above legal principles, on July 25, 2003, when the name of the owner on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay changed from the defendant company to the non-party 1, 2, and 3, the obligation to transfer ownership to the plaintiff of the defendant company was impossible, and the sales contract between the defendant company and the plaintiff was legally rescinded upon the plaintiff's application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case, which includes the plaintiff's declaration of intent to cancel the sales contract on the ground of nonperformance of such obligation. Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 420 million due to the cancellation of the contract and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from February 27, 2009 to July 17, 2009, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the application for modification of the purport of this case's claim of this case, and the next day to the day of full payment.

2) Plaintiff 2’s claim

On June 13, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased 100 square meters from the Defendant Company from the Defendant Company to the Defendant Company in accordance with the instant contract, among the land secured for recompense of development outlay as shown in the attached Table No. 3 of the attached Table, from among the land secured for recompense of development outlay that the Defendant Company would be paid from the Defendant Company pursuant to the instant contract, and the Defendant Company did not perform its duty to transfer ownership of the land secured for recompense of development outlay, despite the Plaintiff’s peremptory notice on several occasions. The Defendant Company’s delivery of the application for modification of the purport of the instant claim, which includes the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the sales contract on the grounds of nonperformance of the obligation of the Defendant Company, and the sales contract between the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff was lawfully rescinded. Accordingly, the Defendant Company has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff at the annual rate from February 27, 2009 to July 17, 2009, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim of this case, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant union

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant company completed construction works equivalent to 70.54% of the construction of this case and lent KRW 880,750,000 to the defendant union, and that the defendant union is obligated to deliver to the defendant company the development recompense land corresponding to the amount of the original construction and the amount of the loan, and that the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant company in subrogation of the defendant company, in order to preserve the right to request the return of purchase-price owned by the defendant company, the plaintiffs claim that the owner of the development recompense land in accordance with the register of the development recompense land in accordance with the attached Table 1, 2, and 9 and the development recompense land in accordance with Paragraph 5 of the same Table (hereinafter the above development recompense land in this case referred to as "the development recompense land in this case") shall change the name of the owner of the land

2) Determination

As seen earlier, Plaintiff 1 had claims equivalent to KRW 10,00,000 for shares of KRW 420,000 and KRW 130,000,000 against Defendant Company. According to Plaintiff 1’s evidence Nos. 11 through 24, and evidence Nos. 12-1 through 3, Nonparty 4, etc. who acquired the right to claim ownership transfer registration of Defendant Company’s association from Defendant Company, filed a lawsuit against Defendant Company for change of the name of owner in the development recompense land No. 2006 or 6508, the Busan High Court completed the procedure of final appeal No. 2006 or 70.54% of the construction land No. 1,122,00,000 and KRW 791,750,000,000 and KRW 807,000,000,000,000 won, the Defendant Company’s association is obligated to deliver the same amount to Defendant Company.

According to the above facts, the defendant union is obligated to deliver remaining 783.8 square meters in recompense land (1,301.6 - 225.6 m2.2 m2922 m2,965) remaining after subtracting 2,924 m2.2 m2 (296.3m2,924/965) from the land allotted by the development recompense land indicated in the attached Table No. 7 of the attached Table No. 4 to be transferred to the non-party 4, out of 1,301 m2.6 m2,292 m2,292.2 m2, which is to be transferred to the non-party 5 of the land allotted by the development recompense land to be transferred to the defendant company. The plaintiffs can seek implementation on behalf of the defendant company, which is the creditor of the defendant company, who is insolvent. Thus, the defendant union has an obligation to change the aggregate of 753m23m29,294 m29.24 m25) designated by the plaintiffs.

B. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant Union

1) Summary of the defendant union's assertion

The Defendant Company renounced all of its claims against the Defendant Partnership on August 2, 2004, and even if not, the extinctive prescription of claims against the Defendant Company against the Defendant Partnership is three years as claims against the Corporation. Thus, the Defendant Company already extinguished due to the completion of prescription at the expiration of three years from December 19, 2003, which waived the instant construction work. Even if the claims against the Defendant Partnership are recognized, according to the instant contract, if the construction cost increases according to the instant contract, the unit price of the land secured for development outlay should be adjusted accordingly. As of August 31, 2007, the total construction price is increased to KRW 2,960,272,241, the Defendant Company did not receive any development recompense land more than the already paid land secured for development outlay. In addition, the Defendant Company’s calculation of the unit price of the land secured for development recompense land is a provisional injunction or provisional attachment on the construction price claim against the Defendant Partnership or the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the land secured for development recompense land is a list of the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendant Association.

2) Determination as to the assertion that the Defendant Company renounced the claim for construction price and borrowed money

According to the evidence No. 2, No. 3-1, No. 19-2, No. 19-2, No. 26-2, and No. 27-1 and No. 2 of No. 8, Defendant Company: (a) it is difficult to find out that, on April 21, 2003, the representative director of the Defendant Company would resume the construction work that was discontinued to the Defendant Association on May 1, 2003 and complete the construction work on July 30, 2003; (b) it is difficult to find that the Defendant Company would waive the construction work upon the lapse of 7 days after the resumption of the construction work; (c) it is difficult to find out that, at the time of December 19, 2003, the representative director of the Defendant Company gave up KRW 108-2,50,000,000,000,000 won x KRW 97,000,000,000.

3) Determination as to the assertion that the claim for construction price has expired

In the instant contract, the Defendant Union paid the payment of the contract price and the repayment method of the borrowed money as the repayment method of the borrowed money, and the amount of the borrowed money as the land secured by the recompense for development outlay calculated at an ordinary unit price according to the details of the authorization for the project, and the fact that the Defendant Union agreed to sell the borrowed money to the Defendant Company at an ordinary unit price according to the details of the authorization

According to the above agreement, the defendant company shall have the right to claim for the transfer of land allotted in recompense for development outlay instead of the payment of the price of the land for the construction or loan and the payment of the loan amount. Even if it is deemed that the extinctive prescription of the claim for the Corporation's credit constitutes three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant company shall have the duty to change the name of the owner of the land allotted in recompense for development recompense for development outlay as of December 19, 2003 to the defendant company until December 19, 2003, since the defendant company shall bear the duty to change the name of the owner of the land in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay as of December 19, 203 to the defendant company, the due date for the transfer of land allotted in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for the defendant company on behalf of the defendant company, the plaintiffs's claim for the transfer of land in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for the defendant.

4) Determination on the assertion that the unit price of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay should be adjusted upward

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Nos. 11-3 and 4, the Defendants’ payment of the construction cost and repayment method of borrowed money under the instant contract shall be paid as a land substitution plan authorization. However, if there is any change or increase in the construction cost, the amount of construction cost shall be adjusted to the average unit price per land secured by the recompense for development outlay (Article 5(2) of the A). ② The average unit price of the land secured by the recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay shall be determined according to the project authorization details (Article 8(3) of the A). ③ The instant construction project shall be implemented in accordance with the design approval conditions, but it may be changed under consultation if inevitable. The construction cost shall be adjusted to the increase in the average unit price of the remaining land secured by the recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development, and if it is difficult to adjust the unit price of the land secured by development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development purposes (Article 10).

In light of the above circumstances, it is true that there is a realistic need to adjust the unit price of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay in order to complete the project, since only the land secured by the authorities in recompense for development outlay is implemented as the project fund, and the construction cost should be increased due to changes in circumstances such as price increase and demand for design change, etc., for a long period of time. In the case of the contract of this case, it seems that there is a practical need to adjust the unit price of the land secured by the authorities in recompense for development outlay in order to ensure the completion of the project. In the case of the contract of this case, the contract

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings as to Gap evidence 11-6 through 8, the defendants decided to change the settlement method of the total construction cost (contract amount, borrowed money, etc.) of the contract of this case to the development recompense area for the average reduction rate on April 7, 2002 on the ground that the contents of the agreement under Articles 4, 5, and 8 are unreasonable among the above agreement, and it can be acknowledged that the development recompense area is specified as 4,644.2m2m2 as shown in the attached list, and that the unit price per 44,526m2 is fixed as 12m2, as shown in the attached list, and that it is difficult for the defendants to recognize the fact that the contract amount stipulated the method of adjusting the unit price of the land secured for development recompense area at the time of increase or change of the construction cost as seen above is null and void. Thus, the defendants' assertion that the defendant's association did not have to pay the unit price per 444,526m2 of land secured for development recompense area for each of this case.

5) Determination on the assertion regarding preservative measures on land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay

A) Facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged according to the statements in Section 21-1 to 10 of the evidence in Section B:

(1) On March 12, 2003, the Daegu District Court accepted Nonparty 6’s application and rendered a provisional attachment order on the operating expenses and claims against Nonparty 9’s Defendant Union (2003Kadan15364).

(2) On April 1, 2003, the Changwon District Court accepted Nonparty 10’s application and rendered a provisional attachment of KRW 125 million on the Defendant Company’s claim for the construction payment against the Defendant Company’s Defendant Partnership.

(3) On June 20, 2003, Busan District Court accepted Nonparty 11’s application and rendered a provisional attachment on the Defendant Company’s Defendant Company’s claim for ownership transfer registration on the land allotted in recompense for development outlay No. 6 and No. 9 as stated in the separate sheet No. 2003Kahap363.

(4) On September 23, 2003, the Daegu District Court accepted Nonparty 12’s application and rendered a provisional attachment of Nonparty 9’s claim for ownership transfer registration as to the land allotted in recompense for development outlay No. 9 as indicated in the attached Table No. 2003Kadan7008 against the Defendant Union.

(5) On December 1, 2003, Busan District Court accepted Nonparty 13’s application and rendered a provisional disposition against the Defendant Company’s right to claim the transfer registration of ownership in accordance with the attached Table 1 against the Defendant Company’s Defendant Partnership as set forth in 2003Kadan13908.

(6) On June 23, 2004, Busan District Court accepted Nonparty 14’s application and rendered a provisional disposition against the Defendant Company’s right to claim the transfer registration of ownership in accordance with the attached Table 7 against the Defendant Company’s Defendant Partnership.

(7) On July 8, 2004, the Daegu District Court accepted Plaintiff 2’s application on July 8, 2004 and rendered a provisional attachment on the right to claim ownership transfer registration as to each land allotted by the Defendant Company’s association as indicated in the attached list to the Defendant Company’s association.

(8) On July 12, 2004, the Daegu District Court accepted Plaintiff 1’s application on July 12, 2004, and rendered a provisional attachment on the Defendant Company’s claim for construction price payment against the Defendant Company’s association and each claim for ownership transfer registration as to each development recompense land listed in the separate sheet.

(9) The Daegu District Court accepted Nonparty 15’s application, and decided on July 9, 2004 as to the provisional seizure of the right to claim the ownership transfer registration of the land allotted in recompense for development outlay as stated in the attached Table No. 2, 4, and 5 against the Defendant Company’s Defendant Company’s Defendant Union, and decided on the provisional seizure of the right to claim the ownership transfer registration of the land allotted in recompense for development outlay as stated in the attached Table No. 3 of the attached Table No. 2, 4, and 5 against the Defendant Company’s Defendant Union. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2005Kadan7421, Mar. 7,

B) Determination

According to the above facts, the provisional attachment of the non-party 6 and 12 is not a provisional attachment of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the defendant's association, but a provisional attachment of the non-party 9's operating expenses claim or the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the defendant's association. The non-party 10's provisional attachment does not provisionally attach the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the defendant's association. The non-party 14's provisional attachment of the claim for the construction expenses against the defendant's association. The non-party 15's provisional attachment does not obstruct

On the other hand, the provisional attachment by Nonparty 11 and the provisional injunction by Nonparty 13 and the provisional injunction by Nonparty 15, and the provisional attachment by Nonparty 15 are the same as the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay that the plaintiffs seek, and therefore, whether such provisional attachment interferes with the plaintiffs' claims or not.

The attachment or provisional attachment of the right to claim ownership transfer registration is not against the claim but against the subject of the claim for ownership transfer registration, and it is not against the subject of the claim for ownership transfer registration, and there is no way to notify the debtor and the third debtor of the decision in the register under the current law. Thus, the attachment or provisional attachment is effective only between the creditor, the debtor, and the third debtor, and it cannot claim the effect of prohibition of disposal of the attachment or provisional attachment. Thus, the attachment or provisional attachment of the right to claim ownership transfer registration does not have the effect of prohibition of disposal of the real estate itself which is the subject of the claim, and even if there is provisional attachment of the claim, the debtor is prohibited from collecting the benefit from the third debtor in reality, and the court may seek performance against the third debtor, and the court cannot dismiss it on the ground that provisional attachment is already a provisional attachment. However, the judgment ordering the transfer registration cannot be seen as a way to block the third debtor when it becomes final and conclusive, and in such case, the court should not order the provisional disposition to cancel the provisional attachment registration (see Supreme Court Decision 9829Da9699999.

However, the above legal principles are examined as to whether the same applies to this case, and the land subdivision rearrangement association basically prepared and kept for the convenience in carrying out its business or for the management of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, etc., and the land subdivision rearrangement association, etc. registered in the register of the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for the convenience of carrying out its business or according to the procedures or methods set by it, and if registered in the register of the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for the same purpose, the double assignee can oppose the double assignee and the ownership can be acquired at a time on the next day of the public notice of the disposition in substitution for development outlay for the same purpose. However, the above legal principles on the registration of real estate and the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the registration in the register are completely different from the legal nature and effect of the acquisition of ownership before the public notice of the disposition in substitution for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development outlay for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for the defendant association for the above.

6) Determination on the assertion of right to designate development recompense land

As seen earlier, the Defendant Union has the obligation to change the name on the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to pay the remainder of land and the loan amount to the Defendant Company to the Defendant Company. The right to designate the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development recompense for development recompense for the Defendant Company is recognized as the Defendant Union’s right to designate the land in the attached list 2, 5, and 9 from April 15, 2009. This is the same as that of the instant land allotted by the Plaintiff for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development recompense for development outlay for development outlay for the Plaintiff Company (as stated in the evidence No. 18, Busan District Court Decision 2007Da13376, Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch for revocation of fraudulent act, which is recognized that Nonparty 16 claimed against the Defendant Union to change its name.

However, shares 2,556/4,850 of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay listed in attached Tables 2 and 9 and 550 of the land in recompense for development outlay listed in paragraph (5) does not exceed 660.5 square meters in total [9.2 square meters + 305.7 square meters + 255.6 square meters in total [485 square meters x 2,56/4,850] and the Defendant’s association is not obligated to deliver to the Defendant’s company. Thus, the Defendant’s company has the right to seek a change of ownership in the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay. Since the Defendant’s association did not exercise its right to designate it, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs can exercise its right to designate the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay listed in attached Table 1 as the instant lawsuit and seek a change in the name of

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted on the grounds of all of the reasons (the plaintiff's claim for transfer registration of ownership was withdrawn from the exchange change of the lawsuit that was made in the trial of the party, and the judgment of the first instance court became null and void).

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Hong- Line (Presiding Judge)