1. In light of the contents, form, and structure of Article 60(1), Article 61(1) and (3), and Article 47 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”) and Article 48 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27409, Jul. 28, 2016); and the process in which a project implementer imposes and collects the difference between the cost of a rearrangement project and revenue as dues in the course of implementing a rearrangement project, a member becomes a person subject to cash liquidation upon meeting the requirements prescribed in Article 47 of the former Act or the articles of association of the association; thus, a cooperative, who is a project implementer, cannot impose and collect dues pursuant to Article 61(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents; however, a cooperative may seek a refund of certain part of the cost.

(2) On the premise that the Defendant, a reconstruction association implementing a B apartment reconstruction project, is obligated to pay the cash settlement money and delay damages as indicated in the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, pursuant to Article 43(4) and (5) of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, to the Plaintiff, a partner of the Plaintiff, who did not conclude a sales contract within the period for filing an application for parcelling-out, while (2) on the premise that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the business expenses of the association that occurred until the Plaintiff loses its membership, as a matter of course, for the business expenses of the association that occurred until the Plaintiff loses its membership.