청산금
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the dismissal or deletion or addition of a part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. 고치거나 삭제추가하는 부분 ◎ 제1심 판결문 제7쪽 제11행 아래에 다음과 같은 내용을 추가한다.
『다음으로 원고들은, 민법 제719조 제1항은 “탈퇴한 조합원과 다른 조합원간의 계산은 탈퇴 당시의 조합재산상태에 의하여 한다.”라고 규정하고 있으므로 원고들이 피고에서 제명된 2007. 2. 2. 당시의 재산상태, 즉 상가 비동 302호 점포가 철거되고 남은 나대지로 보아 이 사건 부동산을 평가하여야 한다고 주장한다. 그러나, 주택건설촉진법에 의하여 설립된 재건축조합은 민법상의 비법인사단에 해당하므로(대법원 1996. 10. 25. 선고 95다56866 판결 등 참조), 피고가 민법상 조합임을 전제로 하는 원고들의 주장은 이유 없다.』 ◎ 제1심 판결문 제11쪽 제5행 아래에 다음과 같은 내용을 추가한다.
[4] As to this, the plaintiffs' obligation to cancel the provisional registration of this case and the obligation to cancel the principal registration of this case are not related to the defendant's obligation to pay the liquidation money, and even if the plaintiffs' obligation to cancel the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage and the obligation to pay the liquidation money are concurrently performed, the scope recognized as a simultaneous performance relationship is limited to the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security. Since the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage was cancelled on April 23, 2014, which was set at the maximum debt amount of KRW 260 million as to the real estate stated in the attached list No. 1 and the real estate of this case, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case was cancelled on April 23, 2014, as to the remaining amount excluding KRW 260 million,000,000,000