2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1 and 2 as a whole, the Plaintiff was provided with an apartment building of 42 square meters (19 square meters) for the construction project of a new apartment of the Seoul Jung-gu District Housing Association on December 15, 2013 with the Defendant and the Seoul Jung-gu District Housing Association, and agreed to pay 170 million won for the completion payment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant supply contract”). ② In a case where construction deliberation, authorization for change of the establishment of an association, etc. are delayed or project progress is not conducted within six months from the time, the Defendant agreed to return the said KRW 170 million if the Plaintiff requests the cancellation of the contract (Article 8(2)), ③ as stipulated in the supply contract of this case, the Plaintiff agreed to return the said KRW 170 million from December 22, 2013 to December 27, 2017.

1. The payment of the purchase price in full by remitting the total amount of KRW 170 million to the Defendant, including KRW 23 million, KRW 147 million, to the land trust for up to July 1, 200, and KRW 170 million, and ④ the fact that the construction deliberation resolution of the C Housing Association was passed by the Seoul Building Committee on July 2016 in relation to the said new construction project may be recognized by the Seoul Building Committee.

On the other hand, the fact that the Defendant refunded the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 130 million from March 11, 2016 to December 2, 2016 does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, in this case where the Plaintiff seeks the return of the sale price above due to the cancellation of the instant sales contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the sale price of KRW 40 million (i.e., KRW 170 million - KRW 130 million -) and to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 19, 2017, the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case until August 9, 2017, which is the date of the instant sentencing, to the day of full payment, to the day of the instant sentencing, and to the day of full payment, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the above unclaimed 40 million won out of the unclaimed 40 million won should be actually borne by the regional housing association, so it cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

However, it is reasonable to view that the obligation to return the sale price to the Plaintiff as stipulated in the instant supply contract is borne by the Defendant as the contractual party, and the above argument by the Defendant is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.