2013 Gohap 32068 Action for claim, such as sale price

Bosi Construction Co., Ltd.

As shown in the attached list of the defendant.

December 2, 2016

February 10, 2017

1. The Defendants stated in the table of the amount for the claimant in the attached Form No. 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff each amount stated in the table of the amount for the claimant.

2. The plaintiff's claims filed with the defendants stated in the annexed dismissal slip are dismissed, respectively.

3. Litigation costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall be borne as shown in the attached Form No. 1.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The name of "members of a seller for sale in lots" listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be stated on the plaintiff, and each defendant shall pay 18% interest per annum from May 17, 2013 to February 13, 2014 to the delivery date of the written amendment of claims and the written amendment of claim cause for sale in lots as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, and 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment on the separate sheet No. 1, each of which is stated in the separate sheet No. 2, and the defendant's "person registered as at the time of registration" stated in the separate sheet No. 2, as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, as stated in the defendant's name on the separate sheet No. 2, the defendant shall pay each of the above amount in the separate sheet No. 1, 2013 to May 17, 2013, and each of the "paid amount" column No. 18% interest per annum from the following day to February 13, 201, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Conclusion and contents of the instant construction contract (Special Agreement on Management of Sale Price);

On February 17, 2009, the Plaintiff, a juristic person, engaged in the housing construction business, etc., entered into a new construction contract (hereinafter referred to as the "A reconstruction contract", hereinafter referred to as the "construction contract of this case") for a main complex building and its appurtenant facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "C") on the ground of 'C' on the land of 1,795 square meters (5 square meters) in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (542.9 square meters), 'C', 17 stories above ground, and apartment of 80 households (revision of design around January 2010) between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. As a special condition for the construction contract of this case in relation to the payment of the construction price to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the association of this case were paid from the buyer of this case to the account jointly managed by the Plaintiff and the association of this case, with priority.

The construction cost is determined to be used (Article 5 of the Special Conditions of the Construction Contract, hereinafter referred to as the "Special Agreement on Management of Sale Price").2)

1. The main contents of the construction contract of this case 3. The construction site of this case : The construction period of 276.6. from the commencement date of the construction project of this case : 16,641,480,000 won (excluding value-added tax): the late interest rate of 18% per annum: the late interest rate of 19.10% per annum: the construction cost of 1/10- the special terms and conditions of the construction contract of this case 1/10- the sale price (management of the sale price) 1. The sale price of this case shall be jointly managed with the joint account opened by the association of this case.(2) The expenses of the sale price of this case (including the contributions of members) shall be paid by the plaintiff after consultation with the association of this case.(3) The association of this case shall be designated as the occupancy period (including the maximum of 30 days from the commencement date of the occupancy) in consultation with the plaintiff.

B. Conclusion and contents of the instant partner sales contract (designated account agreement)

1) On January 2009, before and after the conclusion of the instant construction contract, the instant association entered into a contract for the supply of commercial buildings (hereinafter referred to as "sale contract partner") with its partners who owned the existing commercial shares, etc. after evaluating the amount of rights of the individual partner's shares from the sale price and determining the balance after deducting the amount from the amount of the rights of the individual partner's shares as the shares

2) In the above union member sales contract, "Buyers shall pay the sales price (members' contributions)".

The instant association and the Plaintiff shall deposit the sales price with the account of A reconstruction Association (hereinafter referred to as the “designated account”) designated by the Plaintiff, and the amount of deposits other than the designated account shall not be recognized as the sale price, and the liability therefor shall be the whole partner (Article 1(3); hereinafter referred to as the “designated account agreement”). In addition, the sales contract is signed by the seller and the executor, the instant association, the Plaintiff, and the purchaser, the Plaintiff, and the purchaser.

(3) Pursuant to Article 1 (Sales Price and Payment Method) of the Act, the number of members of the association shall be equal to the amount of the loan of this case and the account designated by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "designated account of this case") on the date of the relevant agreement. The amount of deposits other than the above accounts shall not be recognized as the sale price and the liability for the resale shall be the whole members of the association. (2) The sale price of this case shall be limited to the case where the defendant submits the documents required by the association of this case and obtains the approval of the plaintiff. (3) The sale price of this case shall be deferred by the agreement of the association of this case. (1) The amount of the loan of this case shall be reduced by 5% per annum from the date of the initial sale price of this case and the late payment charge of this case shall be calculated by 15% per annum from the date of the agreement of the association of this case. (3) The amount of the loan of this case and the late payment charge of this case shall be calculated by 15% per annum or less than 16% per annum.

2) The details of the association members’ contributions as a result of the instant sales contract prepared by the Defendants are as follows.

피고 순번분양계약 당사자호수계약일총분양대금(단위: 원, 이하 같다)조합원 권리가액조합원 분담금액소유권이전등기명의자(분양계약당사자와 다른 경우만 기재)1EB08, B092009. 1. 5.142,604,00066,474,00076,130,0002F102미상431,908,063417,840,50014,067,5633G2022011. 1. 20.439,676,000328,946,000110,730,0004H3032009. 1. 16.762,549,000500,724,000261,825,0005I402미상234,300,00077,000,000157,300,0006. J7K4032009. 1. 14.234,300,00049,780,000184,520,0008. L9M4042009. 1. 14.234,300,00034,657,000199,643,00010N802미상234,300,00063,000,000171,300,00012. 011P14042009. 6. 2.234,300,00030,732,000203,568,00013Q4062009. 1. 19.234,300,00024,803,000209,497,00014R5032009. 1. 14.231,000,00068,395,000162,605,00015S504미상231,000,00037,078,000193,922,00016T5062009. 1. 14.231,000,00035,910,000195,090,00017. U18V602미상231,000,00066,474,000164,526,00019W603미상231,000,00030,816,000200,184,00020X702미상234,300,0002,500,000231,800,00021. Y22Z7032009. 1. 14.234,300,00031,149,000203,151,00023AA7042009. 2. 27.234,300,00043,175,000191,125,00024. AB25AC7052009. 1. 16.234,300,00024,051,000210,249,00026AD804미상234,300,00077,000,000157,300,00027. AE28AF8052009. 1. 14.234,300,00038,415,000195,885,00029AG902미상234,300,0002,500,000231,800,00030AH9042009. 1. 16.234,300,00037,078,000197,222,00031. AI32AJ9062009. 2. 16.234,300,00031,316,000202,984,00033. AK34AL1002미상234,300,0002,500,000231,800,00035AM10032009. 1. 9.234,300,00031,316,000202,984,00036AN10042009. 1. 23.234,300,00048,853,000185,447,00037AO1102미상234,300,00075,660,000158,640,00038. AP39AQ11042009. 1. 14.234,300,00035,659,000198,641,00040. AR, 41. AS42AT11052009. 2. 16.234,300,00075,660,000158,640,00043. AU44AV1202미상234,300,00038,507,000195,793,00045AW12032009. 1. 16.234,300,00031,316,000202,984,00046AX12042009. 1. 14.234,300,000106,141,000128,159,00047. AY48AZ12062009. 2. 27.234,300,00037,078,000197,222,00049BA1302미상234,300,0008,018,000226,282,00050BB13032009. 1. 18.234,300,00037,412,000196,888,00051BC1305미상234,300,0005,400,000228,900,00052BD1306미상234,300,00025,309,000208,991,00053. BE54BF1402미상234,300,000137,958,00096,342,00055BG14032009. 4. 9.234,300,00036,577,000197,723,00056BH14062009. 1. 16.234,300,00035,910,000198,390,00057Bl1502미상234,300,0000234,300,00058BJ15032009. 1. 14.231,000,00037,078,000193,922,00059BK15052009. 1. 18.231,000,00034,573,000196,427,00059. BK, 60. BL61BM15062009. 1. 18.231,000,00035,910,000198,390,00062BN1605미상234,300,00026,300,000208,000,00063. BO64BP17032009. 8. 28.234,300,00034,300,000200,000,00065BQ1704미상234,300,00075,660,000158,640,00066. BR

C. Conclusion and contents of the instant business agreement (claim Transfer Clause)

1) Since then the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost for the Plaintiff. On April 6, 2011, the Plaintiff and the instant association entered into the instant construction contract project agreement and the business agreement (Evidence A 3; hereinafter referred to as the “instant business agreement”) with which the modification was made as follows; the instant business agreement entered into a contract on the business of the instant construction contract; the Plaintiff and the instant association entered into a separate agreement between the Plaintiff and the instant association members on the refund of the sales volume (the Plaintiff and the instant association entered into a separate agreement between the instant association and the union members on the moving expenses and the repayment of the moving expenses (the moving expenses to the union members and the repayment after the completion of the C) and the late payment of interest on the intermediate payment (the members received the intermediate payment from the Korean bank for the payment of the sales price, and the instant association and the instant association agreed that the Plaintiff will receive the repayment from the union members after the completion of the C, etc., as well as the interest on the intermediate payment and the intermediate payment to the Plaintiff.

There was a content that separately transfers the credit (Article 2, Article 2, Article 2, subparagraph 2, 3, and hereinafter referred to as "the drawings for claims").

Article 2 (Change of Method of Payment of Construction Expenses and Method of Implementation of Projects) ① The project of this case shall be changed as follows at the time of conclusion of this Agreement with the instant association. 2. Other than subparagraph 1 above, the revenues of the association members such as proceeds from the sale of lots, repayment of loans for relocation expenses, payment of interest, refund money, late payment charges, etc. (including balance of accounts “A” on the date of conclusion of the agreement) shall revert to the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff. 3. The foregoing shall be transferred to the association of this case, and the amount of interest after the expiration of the agreement shall be deducted from the date of the instant agreement. 1. 2. The agreement for relocation expenses to be repaid by the association members of this case shall be transferred to the Plaintiff, 1. 3. The agreement for the sale of lots shall be effective after the expiration of the agreement between the association and the association members of this case, 1. 2. 3. The agreement for the sale of lots and interest shall be paid by the association members of this case to the Plaintiff by the expiration of the agreement.

D. The grounds for dispute between the Plaintiff and the instant association

1) Without the Plaintiff’s consent, the instant association changed the part of intermediate payment through the cooperative sales contract from the existing bank account (D) to the foreign exchange bank account (BS) with the Plaintiff, and the majority of the union members who concluded a sales contract accordingly did not transfer the part of the loan out of the existing bank to the bank loan out of Korea to the bank, and settle the accounts by either receiving additional loans from the bank outside of Korea, or paying the remainder of the sales price and the part payment interest directly to the instant association in cash.

2) Around July 19, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the use of a new apartment building C and completed the process of completion. The occupancy designation period of C was until August 31, 201. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant apartment building C on September 15, 201, while most members failed to pay the sale price, etc., and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment building to the members on September 26, 201.

3) On November 25, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for construction cost (the first instance court High Court Decision 2011Dahap22128, Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na90421, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da211954, Nov. 21, 201) by asserting that the Plaintiff may file a request for provisional attachment on each sectional ownership, and that BT (the employees of the company AY operated by the president of the cooperative) who is one of the members of the cooperative may directly claim the sales price to the members of the cooperative or file a claim for subrogation of creditors. The Plaintiff’s claim in the above lawsuit is asserted by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s assertion was accepted that the Plaintiff’s claim, such as the sale price, against BT, was subrogated by the creditor, and the decision was finalized on October 30, 2015 that the portion of the sale price paid by BT through the foreign exchange bank account was invalid against the designated account agreement (the Plaintiff sent an official letter that, after October 23, 2012, the first instance judgment was rendered on the same purport, Defendant AY et al. and urged the Plaintiff to pay the sale price, etc. directly to the Plaintiff on November 2, 2012).

3) Meanwhile, when the first instance judgment was rendered in order that the Plaintiff’s subrogation claim was accepted and the validity of the payment of the sale price through a bank loan that is not the designated account of the union members was denied, the instant union applied for the payment order, etc. from January 2013 to the union members for the payment order seeking the payment of the sale price directly unpaid, the moving expense loan repayment, the intermediate payment interest, and the payment order. In the process, where a union member raises an objection against the sale price paid or settled in a manner other than the designated account, the union agreed to reduce or adjust the amount claimed for the payment order, and some union members deposit the determined amount.

4) On May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the purchase price against the Defendants.

(e) Execution of arbitral awards and notifications of transfer;

1) On September 4, 2013, the Plaintiff pending the instant lawsuit, filed an application for arbitration with the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board pursuant to Article 12 of the instant business agreement against the instant association and the executives of the instant association. On June 26, 2014, the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board (the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board) did not comply with the procedure for notifying the assignment of claims pursuant to Article 2(1)3 of the instant business agreement and directly recover the sales price from the instant association with the payment order, etc. against its members, in accordance with the instant business agreement.

The association of this case, on the ground that it is clearly in violation of the duty of assistance and cycle, stated the claims for the transfer notification of Attached Form 3 (in the case of the sale contractor and the Defendants who are the former registration titleholder, if the ownership is different from the former registration titleholder, 17.35%) of the claims subject to notification of the transfer [1.35% of the balance and late payment charges (in accordance with Article 5 (3) of the sale contract) of the union members as of December 31, 2013] (2) the late payment and late payment charges (in the case of Article 8 (2) and Article 4 of the separate debt certificate), ③ the repayment of moving expenses and late payment charges (18% per annum under Article 8 (2) of the business agreement of this case and Article 4 of the separate debt certificate] were assigned to the plaintiff, the association of this case was affirmed by the court of first instance 201 and the judgment of the court of first instance 45% of the union's decision against the plaintiff 201.

2) On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compulsory execution based on the instant arbitral award with the Incheon District Court 2014Gahap5808, and was awarded a favorable judgment (hereinafter referred to as “instant judgment of execution”) to the effect that compulsory execution based on the arbitral award is permitted by the said court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 12, 2016.

3) From August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) around August 4, 2016, around the arbitral award and judgment of execution of the instant case, notified the Defendants of the assignment of claims pursuant to Article 263 of the Civil Execution Act; (b) the Defendants, who did not receive the notification of the assignment of claims, are Defendant 4 H6) and Defendant 51 BC.

(f) Subsequent litigation proceedings

1) On June 17, 2014, around the time when an arbitral award was rendered to the effect that the act of the association of this case excluding the Plaintiff and directly recovering the sale price, etc. to its members is a violation of the duty under the business agreement of this case, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for cancellation of a fraudulent act with the Incheon District Court 2014Kahap54904 as the right to preserve the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment payment amount against the association of this case as to the act of reducing the sale price between the association of this case and the above Defendants, and filed a lawsuit for cancellation of a fraudulent act with the Plaintiff as to the union of this case and the members of the association of this case including the above Defendants, and filed a lawsuit for subrogation against the obligee. On May 11, 2016, the above court judged that it is difficult to readily conclude it as fraudulent act in light of the Plaintiff’s order of payment and the circumstances leading up to the reduction agreement. The appellate court declared that the part of the claim for payment order for each of the creditor subrogation after interest payment was unlawful and dismissed (the part of the appeal decision is dismissed).

2) Meanwhile, on March 23, 2016, after the judgment of execution of the instant arbitral award became final and conclusive, the instant union filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel the sales contract with the said union members on the grounds that the said union failed to deposit the judgment, etc. based on the result of the lawsuit with the union and the payment of the sales price, and filed a lawsuit for cancellation of the ownership of each sectional ownership (No. 2016Dahap52254, Incheon District Court Decision 2016).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 19, 38, 98, 103, 106 to 117, Eul evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 6 (including each number, if any,

Ha Unless otherwise specified, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 6-5, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence of this court's lecture point, Korean Housing Finance Corporation, the whole purport of the arguments, as a result of the order to submit each financial transaction information to Korea Housing Finance Corporation,

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) Claim for the takeover of claims by the award and judgment of execution; and

1) According to the above facts, inasmuch as the notification of the assignment of claims, such as the sale price, etc. to the above Defendants in lieu of the intent of the association of this case against the Defendants as indicated in attached Table 3, based on the instant arbitral award that became final and conclusive between the Plaintiff and the instant association, was given to the Defendants indicated in the claim subject to notification of the transfer (excluding Defendant 4. H. and Defendant 51.BC where the notification of the transfer was not made) based on the terms of the assignment of claims and the execution judgment against the Plaintiff of the instant association, the said Defendants are assigned to the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the said Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant association, the amount of claims, such as the sale price, etc., according to the mutual agreement of each association. The individual

[This part of the defendants 7] was decided by the court in the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the BT. Thus, since the business agreement of this case alone cannot be deemed to have been concluded between the plaintiff and the association of this case, the claims against the defendants of the association are not transferred to the plaintiff merely by the notification of assignment of claims based on the arbitral award. However, the arbitral award confirmed pursuant to Article 35 of the Arbitration Act has the same effect as the court's final and conclusive judgment between the plaintiff and the association of this case. In the dispute process relating to the recovery of the sale price of this case, the plaintiff

As a result of the arbitral award under Article 12 of the Business Agreement against the plaintiff of the association of this case, it is clear that the act of directly collecting the sale price, etc. from the union members without complying with the obligation of transferring the claim under the business agreement of this case under the premise of the obligation of transferring the claim under the business agreement of this case and directly recovering the sale price, etc. from the union members through the order of payment order, etc., constitutes a violation of the plaintiff's duty of cooperation in the collection of the construction price under the business agreement of this case, and the above arbitral award and enforcement judgment became final and conclusive, as seen above, the claims subject to the notification of transfer mentioned in the attached Form 3 are transferred to the plaintiff according to the final and conclusive arbitral award, apart from the interpretation of the business agreement of this case, since the claims subject to the notification of transfer mentioned in the attached Form 3 are clearly established, the above defendants' assertion cannot be accepted (in addition, the contents of the judgment made by the defendants as the above grounds are not specified as the individual claims amount of the union members at the time of entering into the business agreement of this case, and it cannot be viewed as an individual agreement of transfer of claims.

2) However, as acknowledged earlier by the Defendants in the aforementioned claims subject to the notice of transfer, Defendant 4. H, Defendant 51. BC’s claim for the transfer of claim against the Plaintiff did not constitute a notice of transfer of claim in lieu of the intent of the instant association, and there is no reason to further consider it.

In addition, the Defendants (Defendant 5.5, Defendant 7.K, Defendant 9. M, Defendant 10.N, Defendant 11. P, Defendant 20. X, Defendant 23. AAD, Defendant 30. AH, Defendant 32, Defendant AJ, Defendant 37. AO, Defendant 39, Defendant Q Q.AT, Defendant 42.AT, Defendant 46. AX, Defendant 52. BD, Defendant 62.BN, and Defendant 65. B Q Q) and each of the pertinent registered owners of the above offices.

The claim acquisition amount, such as the sale price, is sought, but attached to the arbitral award of this case recognized earlier.

According to the contents of the claims subject to notification of the transfer, the instant arbitral award was issued to the registered titleholder and did not order the transfer of claims to the Defendants who did not complete the registration of transfer. Thus, even if the execution notice was given to the Defendants who did not complete the registration of transfer, this cannot be deemed to substitute for the indication of the transfer of claims by the association of this case pursuant to the arbitral award, so long as it cannot be deemed to be a substitute for the indication of the transfer of claims by the association of this case. (The above Defendant 5. I, 7. K, 9. M, 10. N, 16. P, 16. T, 20. X, 23. AA, 26. AD and 26. AD, H, 30. AH, 32, AJ, 37.A.O, 39. Q2, AT, 46.2 AX, AX, 62. B, 62N, 25. Q25.

B. Determination as to the remainder of selective claims 9

1) Determination as to the assertion that a direct claim for sale price exists against members

A) The Plaintiff asserts that when compiling all the provisions of the instant construction contract, business agreement and sales contract, it has the right to claim the sales price directly as the party to the instant sales contract, or that at least the partner sales contract is a contract for a third party that grants the Plaintiff a claim such as the sales price to its members.

B) In addition, according to the contents of the union member sales contract acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff’s seal as the contractor for the union member sales contract is acknowledged as above. A cooperative member sales contract provides that the union member sales contract cannot resell or move into it without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the instant construction contract (in particular, public contract) entered into between the Plaintiff and the union member and the association of this case.

It is recognized that the Plaintiff and the instant association agreed to assume liability for damages and penalty in the event that the instant association and the instant association violate the business agreement at the time of the instant business agreement.

However, as acknowledged earlier, considering the fact that the instant association is an executor of the object of sale in lots, and the Plaintiff is merely an agent of the object of sale in lots, and that there is no direct provision that the Plaintiff may immediately claim the sale price to its members even in the cooperative sale contract, the purport of all the above-mentioned provisions is rather to be determined as an apparatus to ensure the smooth payment of the construction price by having the Plaintiff, a contractor who does not have a direct right to claim the sale price, jointly manage the payment situation of the union members with the instant association. It does not mean that the Plaintiff has the right to claim the sale price from the direct members of the association excluded from the association of this case as the direct party to the union sale in lots, or that the union members have the right to claim the sale price to the Plaintiff, or that the union members have the right to claim the sale price to the Plaintiff, as the direct party to the union sale contract.

2) Determination as to the assertion of the transfer of claims under the instant business agreement and the claim for the transfer of claims under the General Meeting of the Members of the Self-Governing Association on January 22, 2011

A) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as the members, who purchased the Defendants from the General Assembly of Association Members on January 22, 201, which took place before the instant business agreement, approved the transfer of claims, such as the sale price, to the Plaintiff, the transfer of claims to the individual partners under the instant business agreement was immediately made, and thus, the Plaintiff may claim for the transfer of claims against the individual partners without a separate notification of the transfer of claims.

B) In light of the contents of the claim assignment clause of the instant business agreement acknowledged earlier, the instant provision

It is determined that the union has the intent to transfer all of the claims, such as the sale price, to the union members for the payment of the construction cost.

However, each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 19, which was made before the above business agreement, was made by the general meeting of partners on Jan. 22, 2011 that the union members transferred claims, such as sale price, to the plaintiff, or it is difficult to view that the union members individually approved the transfer of claims, such as sale price, to the plaintiff (the head of the union at the general meeting of partners on Jan. 22, 2011 that all incomes in the name of the union, such as sale price, were paid to the union members as construction cost and construction completion cost, and there is no explanation to the union members, this seems to have been simply explained about the place of using revenues in the name of the union or the method of paying the construction cost). Thus, there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the above business agreement between the union and the plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have been immediately transferred to the union members. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this premise is without merit.

[Plaintiff’s statement of the preparatory document dated July 4, 2014, asserted that the Defendants, a partner, should have been deemed to have increased the performance of the construction contract, and that they may directly file a claim against the Defendants, a partner. However, in relation to the aforementioned assertion, the Defendants did not either seek a claim for the purpose of seeking joint and several liability for the total amount of construction cost, not the balance of individual parcelling-out price, as stated in the Defendants, and did not mention the claim in the preparatory document dated August 30, 2016, which finally arranged the grounds for selective claim, and thus, the said assertion is deemed to have been withdrawn and not determined.]

C. Accordingly, the Defendants (Defendant 4.H, Defendant 5. I, Defendant 7.K, Defendant 9. M, Defendant 10. N, Defendant 11. P, Defendant 16. T, Defendant 20.X, and F, and F, Defendant 20.X, and F.

23. The decision is made only with respect to AA, 26. AD, 30. AH, 32. AJ, 37.AO, 39. AT, 42. AT, 46. AX, 51.BC, 52.BD, 62. BN, and 65. B Q.

3. Judgment on the main argument of the Defendants

(a) An increase in the value of rights of members of the association who have purchased shares of those members or clearing shares;

Judgment on the assertion that the sale price should be reflected in the sale price

1) Some Defendants, including Defendant 2.F, Defendant 12.0, and Q, etc., purchased shares of other association members who renounced their shares after concluding a contract for sale in lots and increase the value of rights of association members, the sale price shall be calculated again on the basis thereof (in such case, the contribution of association members shall be reduced). Thus, it is unreasonable to claim the sale price for the union members whose shares have changed due to reasons such as purchase of shares of other association members after concluding the contract for sale in lots.

2) On the other hand, it would eventually result in a change in the amount of sales price to be secured for securing the construction cost in the Plaintiff, so long as the sale contract for cooperative members recognized earlier requires the Plaintiff’s consent (Article 4(1)), it would be so long as the Plaintiff’s consent is required for resale in the pre-sale contract for cooperative members (Article 4(1)), and the pre-sale contract for cooperative members without the Plaintiff’s consent following the conclusion of the contract for cooperative members’ share after the conclusion of the contract for cooperative members’ share purchase without the Plaintiff’s consent.

It is concluded that the property at will is not effective against the partner's sales contract. Therefore, the above defendants' above assertion is without merit.

B. Judgment on the assertion that the sales contract was cancelled

Defendant 1. The Defendants, including Defendant E, Defendant 14. R, and Defendant 15, asserted that the instant association could not claim the purchase price for the purchase price for the purchase in lots against the Defendants prior to the notification of the assignment of claims, etc., on the ground that the instant association could not claim the purchase price for the purchase in lots, etc. under the union's original purchase in lots. Thus, as acknowledged above, the instant association filed a lawsuit for cancellation of ownership registration on the premise that the instant association would cancel the sale contract on the grounds that it would delay the payment obligation such as the sale price for the purchase in lots against Defendant 1, E, etc. while the instant lawsuit is pending, it is difficult to deem that the sale contract was cancelled (as determined below, the deposit according to the result of the instant association's payment order, etc. that excluded the Plaintiff as the parties to the lawsuit for cancellation of ownership is not recognized as the sale price for the union members' purchase in lots, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently in the lawsuit. Therefore, the Defendants' assertion in this case is without merit.

C. Determination as to the assertion that in the event that the plaintiff issued the occupancy certificate, approval of full payment of the sale price for the settlement of accounts with the union is granted

1) Some Defendants, such as Defendant 12.O and Q, etc., were aware to the effect that since the Plaintiff issued the occupancy certificate, they would approve the full payment of the sale price in accordance with separate settlement other than the designated account between the union members and the union members.

2) Dogs, Eul evidence Nos. 13-1, 15-1, 16-1, 17-1, 18-1, 23-2, 30-1, 31, 32-1, 34, 37-38, and 38

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 42, 44, Eul evidence Nos. 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, which were submitted by the defendants, the defendant's occupancy certificate was signed with some defendants including defendant Nos. 1, 42, 44, and Eul evidence Nos. 6. The plaintiff's occupancy certificate is acknowledged, but the other circumstances revealed by the evidence as follows, i.e., the number and details of the remainder after the settlement are not indicated, i.e., the occupancy certificate's entry certificate's name is merely signed by the confirmation person who is not an employee's official seal affixed to the plaintiff, ii) the form of occupancy certificate's entry certificate's signature is without any evidence that there was no separate data or details for the confirmation of the settlement details and the payment of the remainder at the time of the issuance of the occupancy certificate to some defendants, and iv) the occupancy certificate issued by the defendants does not contain the date of the payment of the remainder or the date of the payment of the remainder. Therefore, it is not reasonable to acknowledge the defendants's assertion.

D. Determination as to the assertion that payment should be recognized as sales price payment for the instant association, such as payment through loans from foreign exchange banks and cash payment, not designated accounts

However, according to the agreement on the designated accounts for the sale in lots of cooperative members, even if the Plaintiff, a contractor, was excluded from the sale in lots and was paid in cash, etc. to the association of this case directly or through a loan of a foreign exchange bank, which is not a designated account, such payment shall not be effective as a sale price unless the Plaintiff consented. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion on this part is without merit.

E. Determination as to the allegation of offsetting the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the instant association as the automatic claim

1) The Defendants asserted that, inasmuch as a claim for return of unjust enrichment with respect to the amount equivalent to the amount paid to the instant association is established with respect to the purchase price, the claim against the Defendants of the instant association, such as the sale price, is set off on an equal amount among the claims that the Plaintiff acquired against the Defendants of the instant association.

2) On the other hand, if a partner pays an amount equivalent to the claim, such as the sale price, to be paid to the union of this case in a separate manner contrary to the union member sales contract, and accordingly offsets the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the union of this case as an automatic bond, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the union of this case is paid to the union of this case by the designated account deposit, such offset is ultimately the same as avoiding the designated account agreement under the sales contract while the union of this case and the union members excluded the plaintiff who is the contractor from the time contractor, and such offset is not permissible against the union member sales contract designated account agreement. Thus, the defendants' aforementioned assertion is without reason.

F. The defendants prior to the notification of the assignment of claims and the plaintiff's claim that the result of the lawsuit should be reflected such as the payment order with the union of this case

1) Prior to Defendant 6. J, etc.’s notification of the Plaintiff’s assignment of claims, the Defendants already filed a claim for the sale price, etc. against the Defendants through payment order, etc., and thus, the instant association is obligated to pay only the amount of debt established between the instant association and the association as follows. Furthermore, if the final judgment amount was deposited, the obligation, such as the sale price, is already extinguished.

호수순번피고소송내역사건번호 소송의 경위 및 결과B08,B091E인천지방법원 2013차3362분양대금 등 합계 83,864,975원(미지급분양대금 70,691,520원 + 연체료13,173,455원) 및 그중 분양대금 70,691,520원에 대한 지연손해금의 지 급을 구하는 지급명령확정2023G인천지방법원 2013차3691분양대금 52,347,590원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령 확정4026J인천지방법원 2013차1096, 같은 법원2013가합10174이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 미지급분양대금, 대납금 등 합계 60,841,619원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당피고가 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등을 증거로 제츨하면서 분양대금완납을 주장하자 이 사건 조합은 청구취지를 40,244,414원으로 감축하였고(분양대금청구 부분을 취하하였는지는 불분명), 이에감축된 청구취지 금액의 지급을 명하는 화해권고결정이 내려져 그대로확정되었다.4038L인천지방법원 2013차1096미지급분양대금(103,202,963원), 대납금 등 합계 171,999,035원의 지급 을 구하는 지급명령확정404120인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고가 분양대 금은 완납하였음을 인정하면서 대납금 19,826,406원의 지급을 구하는지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령이 그대로 확정되었다.802140440613Q인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였 음을 인정하면서 대납금 6,556,260원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령이 확정되었다.50314R인천지방법원 2013차1096미지급분양대금, 대납금 등 합계 50,121,505원의 지급하는 구하는 지급명령 확정50617U인천지방법원 2013차5760, 같은 법원2013가소102322이 사건 조합이 2013. 5. 10. 해당 피고를 상대로 분양대금미수금 17,333,874원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의함으로써 진행된 소송에서해당 피고가 이 사건 조합의 명의의 분양대금완납영수증 등을 제출하면서 분양대금의 완납을 주장하여 다툰 끝에 이 사건 조합의 청구가기각되는 판결이 선고되었다.60218V인천지방법원 2013차1096미지급분양대금(96,800,000원), 대납금 등 합계 142,076,267원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령 확정60319W서울동부지방법원2013차623이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였 음을 인정하면서 대납금 103,200원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령이 그대로 확정되었다.70221Y서울중앙지방법원2013차5705분양대금, 대납금 등 합계 128,756,893원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령 확정70322Z인천지방법원 2013차2504, 같은 법원2013가합9525이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 미납대금, 대납비용 등 합계 126,834,413원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당 피고가 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등올 제출하면서 분양대금완납을 주장하자 이 사건 조합은 이를 인정하고 해당 피고에 대한 소를 취하하였다.70424AB서울중앙지방법원2013차15457, 같은법원 2013가단139381이 사건 조합은 2013. 2. 26. 해당 피고를 상대로 분양대금, 대납금 등 합계 110,554,575원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당 피고가 분양대금 등을 완납하였다고 주장하면서 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등을 증거로 제출하였으며, 이에 이 사건 조합은 분양대금은 완납되었음을 인정하면서 청구취지를 7,832,821원으로 감축하였고, 이에 7,832,821원을 지급하라는 내용의 화해권고결정이내려졌으며 이에 대하여 이 사건 조합 및 해당 피고가 이의하지 아니하여 그대로 확정되었다.70525AC인천지방법원 2013차5761, 같은 법원2013가소86024이 사건 조합이 해당 피고를 상대로 분양대금미수금 6,556,261원의 지 급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당 피고가 이 사건조합 명의의 입금표, 영수증 등을 증거로 제출하면서 분양대금완납을주장하는 등 적극적으로 다툰 끝에 이 사건 조합의 청구가 기각되는판결이 선고되었다.80427AE인천지방법원 2013차3375이 사건 조합은 2013. 3. 18. 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였음을 전 제로 이 사건 조합이 대납한 등기비, 인지대, 수수료 등 합계6,712,982원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하지 아니하여 위 지급명령은 그대로 확정되었다.80528AF인천지방법원 2013차1096, 같은 법원2013가합10174이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 미지급분양대금, 이주비, 대납금 등 합계 127,668,740원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당 피고가 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등을 증거로제출하면서 분양대금완납을 주장하자 이 사건 조합은 청구취지를3,023,367원으로 감축하였으며(분양대금청구 부분을 취하하였는지는 불분명), 이에 같은 금액을 지급하라는 내용의 화해권고결정이 내려졌고,위 결정은 그대로 확정되었다.90229AG인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 미지급대금, 대납금 등 합계146,841,003원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령이 그대로 확정되었다.90430AI인천지방법원 2013차2504, 같은 법원2013가합9525이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 미납분양대금, 대납비용 등 합계 140,609,862원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당 피고가 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등을 제출하면서 분양대금완납을 주장하자 이 사건 조합은 해당 피고의 분양대금완납을인정하고 청구취지를 17,754,448원으로 감축하였으며, 이에 2013. 10.10. 17,754,448원을 지급하라는 내용의 조정을 갈음하는 결정이 내려졌고, 이에 대하여 이의가 제기되지 아니하여 그대로 확정되었다.90633AK인천지방법원 2013차1096, 2013가합10174이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 미지급분양대금, 이주비, 대납금 등 합계 158,639,336원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당 피고가 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등을 증거로제출하면서 분양대금완납을 주장하자, 이 사건 조합은 청구취지를25,918,448원으로 감축하였으며(분양대금청구를 취하하였는지는 불분명), 이에 2013. 10. 7. 변경된 청구취지 금액의 지급을 명하는 내용의화해권고결정이 내려져 그대로 확정되었다.100234AL의정부지방법원고양지원 2013차311이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 미지급분양대금, 대납금 등 합계146,377,124원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령은 그대로 확정되었다.100335AM인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였 음을 인정하면서 이 사건 조합이 해당 피고에 대여한 이주비, 대납금등 합계 6,556,110원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에의하여 발령된 지급명령이 그대로 확정되었다.100436AN인천지방법원 2013차2504, 같은 2013가합9525이 사건 조합이 해당 피고를 상대로 미납분양대금, 대납비용 등 합계 110,299,880원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당 피고가 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등을 제출하면서 분양대금완납을 주장하자 이 사건 조합은 이를 인정하고 해당 피고에 대한 소를 취하하였다.110238AP인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였 음을 인정하면서 대납금 54,470원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령이 그대로 확정되었다.110440,41AR/AS인천지방법원 2013차3449이 사건 조합은 2013. 3. 18. 해당 피고들이 분양대금은 완납하였다고 하면서, 대납금(인지대) 155,000원을 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고들이 이의하지아니하여 위 지급명령은 그대로 확정되었다.110543AU수원지방법원 안산지 원 광명시법원 2013차123이 사건 조합은 2013. 2. 15. 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였다고 하면서 대출금 이자, 인지대, 수수료 등 합계 17,385,420원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여해당 피고가 이의하지 아니하여 그대로 확정되었다.120244AV수원지방법원 안산지 원 2013차532, 같은법원 2013가합2853(본소), 2013가합6695( 반소)이 사건 조합은 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고에 대하여 분양대금, 대납금 등 합계 120,858,502원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 피고가 이의하여 제기된 소송에서 해당 피고가 입금표, 영수증 등을 증거로 제출하면서 분양대금 등을 완납하였다고 주장하고, 오히려 이 사건 조합에 대하여 반환받을 정산금이 있으니 이의 지급을 구한다는 반소를 제기하여 이 사건 조합의 청구가 기각되고 해당 피고의 반소가 인용되는 판결을 선고받았고, 위판결은 그대로 확정되었다.120345AW인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였다고 하면서 이주비, 대납금 등 합계 6,912,060원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령이 그대로 확정되었다.120447AY인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였다고 하면서 대납금 합계 5,431,731원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령이 그대로 확정되었다.120948AZ인천지방법원 2013차1096, 같은 법원2013가합10174이 사건 조합은 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고에 대하여 분양대금, 이주비, 대 납금 등 합계 97,928,062원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고,이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된소송에서 해당 피고가 분양대금을 완납하였다는 증거로 입금표, 영수증 등을 제출하면서 적극적으로 다투자 청구취지를 2,322,990원으로감축하였으며(분양대금청구를 취하하였는지는 불분명 ), 이에 2013. 10.7. 변경된 청구취지 기재 금원의 지급을 명하는 화해권고결정이 발령되어 그대로 확정되었다.130249BA인천지방법원 부천지원 김포시법원 13차193158,192,709원 및 지연손해금 상당 지급명령 확정130350BB인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고를 상대로 이주비, 미지급 분양 대금, 대납금 등 합계 85,255,212원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하지아니하여 위 지급명령은 그대로 확정되었다.130653BE인천지방법원 2013차1096, 같은 법원 2013가합10174이 사건 조합은 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고에 대하여 이주비, 분양대금, 대 출금이자, 인지대, 수수료, 등기비 등 합계 136,085,593원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당 피고가 분양대금 중140,000,000원을 지급하였다는 주장을 하였고, 이 사건 조합이 이를 인정하여 청구취지를 변경하여 해당 피고에게 나머지 분양대금, 이주비, 대출금이자, 인지대, 등기비 등 합계 94,028,837원만의 지급을 구하였 고, 이에 2013. 10. 7. 변경된 청구취지 기재 금원의 지급을 명하는 화해권고결정이 발령되었으며, 이에 대하여 이 사건 조합 및 해당 피고가 이의하지 아니하여 위 결정은 그대로 확정되었다.140254BF인천지방법원 2013차2504이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였 음을 인정하면서 대납비용 등 82,800원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령이 확정되었다.140355BG인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고가 분양대 금은 완납하였음을 전제로 대납금(대출금이자, 인지대, 수수료, 등기비)등 합계 6.713,886원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하지 아니하여 지급명령이확정되었다.140656BH인천지방법원 2013차3746이 사건 조합이 2013. 3. 25. 해당 피고를 상대로 미지급 분양대금 (198,390,000원), 이주비, 대납금 등 합계 276,446,094원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하지 아니하여 위 지급명령이 그대로 확정되었다.150257Bl인천지방법원 2013차2504, 같은 법원2013가합9525이 사건 조합은 해당 피고를 상대로 미납대금(120,000,000원), 대납금 등 합계 160,676,273원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여 진행된 소송에서 해당 피고는 분양대금완납을 주장하면서 그 증거로 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등을 제출하였으며, 이에 이 사건 조합은 해당 피고가 분양대금은 완납하였음을 인정하고 청구취지를 15,425,992원으로 감축하였으며, 이에 2013. 10. 10. 15,425,992원 및 이에 대한지연손해금을 지급하라는 내용의 조정을 갈음하는 결정이 내려졌고,이에 대하여 이 사건 조합 및 해당 피고가 이의하지 아니하여 확정되었다.150358BJ인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합은 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고가 분양대 금은 완납하였음을 인정하면서 이주비, 대납금 합계 6,655,860원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 발령된 지급명령이 그대로확정되었다.150559,60BK, BL인천지방법원 2013가합9167이 사건 조합이 2013. 5. 8. 해당 피고들을 상대로 분양대금, 대납금(대 출이자, 인지대, 수수료, 등기비) 등 합계 110,042,328원의 지급을 구하는 소송을 제기하였고, 이에 대하여 해당 피고들은 분양대금을 완납하였다고 주장하면서 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등을 제출하면서 적극적으로 다투었고, 이에 해당 피고들의 위 주장을 받아들여2,486,483원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급하라는 내용의 조정을 갈음하는 결정이 내려졌고, 이에 대하여 이 사건 조합과 해당 피고들이 이의하지 아니하여 그대로 확정되었다.150661BM서울서부지방법원2013차551이 사건 조합이 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고의 분양대 금완납은 인정하면서 대납금 합계 17,907,830원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하지 아니하여 위 지급명령은 그대로 확정되었다.160563BO인천지방법원 2013차2504이 사건 조합이 해당 피고를 상대로 미납대금 및 대납이자 등 합계115,435,091원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하여 발령된 지급명령 이 그대로 확정되었다.170364BP인천지방법원 2013차2504, 같은 법원2013가합9525이 사건 조합은 2013. 2. 26. 해당 피고에게 미납분양대금(90,000,000 원), 대납금 등 합계 128,380,783원의 지급을 구하는 지급명령을 신청하였고, 이에 의하여 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가 이의하여진행된 소송에서 해당 피고는 분양대금을 완납하였다고 주장하면서 그증거로 이 사건 조합이 발행한 입금표, 영수증 등을 제출하였고, 이에이 사건 조합은 해당 피고의 분양대금완납을 인정하고 청구취지를18,897,223원으로 감축하였으며, 이에 18,897,223원 및 지연손해금을 지급하라는 내용의 조정을 갈음하는 결정이 내려졌고, 이 사건 조합 및해당 피고가 이의하지 아니하여 그대로 확정되었다.170466BR인천지방법원 2013차1096이 사건 조합이 2013. 1. 22. 해당 피고를 상대로 해당 피고가 분양대 금은 완납하였음을 인정하면서 대납금 6,556,260원의 지급을 구하는지급명령신청을 하였고, 이에 발령된 지급명령에 대하여 해당 피고가이의하지 아니하여 위 지급명령이 그대로 확정되었다.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, which revealed the purport of the entire argument on the evidence as seen earlier, as seen earlier, the instant association could not arbitrarily reduce the sales price under the contract through the payment order, etc. without the Plaintiff’s consent or approval, or seek direct payment to the instant association, not through the designated account that is jointly managed with the Plaintiff. The amount of sales price established between the instant association and the instant association through the payment order, etc. at the time of its members, or cannot be set up against the Plaintiff by deposit with the instant association. Therefore, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

A) As acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff’s sales contract for partnership members as the sales price for partnership members

As a measure to secure the special agreement for the management of the sale price of the instant construction contract for the purpose of preserving the construction cost preferentially, there is a provision that members may not transfer the rights and obligations under the sale contract or resell the sale right without the consent or approval of the plaintiff who is the contractor (Articles 2(1)3 and 4(1)). Furthermore, as a special agreement, several members, who are the buyers, are obliged to fulfill their obligations as members of the instant construction contract (the special agreement for the management of the sale price of the construction project).

B) Therefore, it is determined that the instant union and its members applied for the payment order, etc. at will without excluding the Plaintiff, made a reduction agreement in relation to the claim for the sale price, or made a deposit with the Plaintiff as the principal deposit in the instant association, which is contrary to the agreement on the designation of the union member sales contract and the special agreement on the management of the sale price of the instant construction contract for which the union members are obligated to comply, and thus, it cannot be asserted to the Plaintiff,

C) In particular, the instant association and the Plaintiff concluded the instant business agreement, including the credit transfer clause, in which the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to belong all the revenues under the sales contract, such as the remainder of the sales price, to the Plaintiff, for the purpose of 11) the sales price already paid by the members of the association, and upon which the instant association arbitrarily received part of the sales price from the members of the association, and the Plaintiff participated in part of the claim by subrogation of the creditor in the lawsuit with BT, and the Plaintiff rejected payment contrary to the designated account agreement, the Plaintiff’s partial reduction of the sales price through the payment order, etc. against the direct Defendants (as seen earlier, according to the litigation progress and the evidence as seen earlier, the instant association had to reflect the amount of the additional loan of the foreign exchange bank or the amount of the cash payment to the association against the Defendants in the process of reduction, such as the payment order, etc.

C. It is more so in light of the circumstances and so forth.

G. The assertion that some cited amounts should be reflected in the revocation suit of fraudulent act by the Incheon District Court 2014 Gohap54904

The Defendants asserted to the effect that the part of the cited amount of the creditor subrogation claim filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, including the Defendants, and the members of the Incheon District Court 2014Gahap54904, which was filed by the Plaintiff against the Plaintiff in a revocation suit of fraudulent act, is against the res judicata effect, or that the claim of the instant lawsuit should be reduced by reflecting the above cited amount, as it overlaps with the same claim. However, the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is different from the claim of the creditor subrogation claim as the claim of the amount of the claim, so long as the subject matter of the lawsuit of this case is different from the claim of the above creditor subrogation claim,

4. Determination as to the defendants' individual assertion

A. The part against which the defendants' arguments are accepted

(3) It is difficult to conclude a sale contract with the Defendant Association No. 200 on the following grounds: (1) It is difficult to conclude a sale contract with the Plaintiff Association No. 200 on the premise that the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer contract was made under the name of the Plaintiff’s 20 G sales contract; (2) it is difficult to conclude a sale contract with the Plaintiff Association No. 1 on the premise that the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer contract was made under the name of 10 G sales contract; (3) it is difficult to conclude a sale contract with the Defendant Association No. 2 on the premise that the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer contract was made under the name of 30 G sales contract; and (4) it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer contract was made under the name of 10 G sales contract with the Plaintiff Association No. 30 on the premise that there was no signature or seal of the Plaintiff as the contractor; and (3) it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer contract was made under the name of 13 G sales contract with the Plaintiff.

B. The part rejecting the Defendants’ assertion

피고주장요지판단피고2. F피고 2. F이 지급받은 이주비 총액은 182,900,000원이고, 이 사건 조합이 이주비 이자 지급을 하지 아니하여 위 피고가 2006. 2. 28.부터 2008. 4. 1 .까지 총 37,860,146원의 이자를 납부하였으므로, 이를 공제한 145,039,854원만을 지급할 의무가 있다.위 피고가 제출한 을나 제5 내지 7호증의 기재만 으로는 이주비 총액이나 그에 대한 이자 납부내역을 인정하기 어렵고(이는 해지되어 효력이 없는2005. 4.자 공사계약서 내용에 따른 정산이다),오히려 갑 제105호증, 을나 제7호증의 각 기재에의하면, 피고2. F은 2007. 6. 30. 이주비 명목으로 대여한 외환은행 대출원금 및 개인 차용금의2008. 4. 1.자 원리금 합계 190,459,714원 중 1차적으로 22,279,724원을 2007. 8. 30.까지 상환하기로 약정하는 취지의 차용증을 이 사건 조합에작성하여 준 사실이 인정될 뿐이어 위 피고의 이부분 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.피고 6. J피고6. J은 이 사건 조합과 법무사 업무 협약을 체결한 사람으로, 2011. 3. 경이 사건 조합 측으로부터 조합원 지분포기물량인 402호 인수를 제안 받아 선의로 이 사건 조합과 위 402호 분양계약을체결하고 이 사건 조합이 요구하는 바에따라 대금을 납부하몄고, 이 사건 조합과의 지급명령 절차에서 확정된 금액 중최종적으로 확인된 분양대금 미지급금12,630,701원은 피고6. J의 이 사건 조합에 대한 법무사 수수료와 상계하기로하고 정산을 완료하였으므로, 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.갑 제5호증의 5, 을마 제1호증의 각 기재에 의하 면, 본래 피고5. I이 위 402호에 관하여 조합원 분양계약을 체결한 점, 피고6. J은 본래 이 사건 조합의 조합원이 아니라 2011. 3. 11. 이 사건 조합과 법무사 업무 협약을 체결한 법무사인 점 등은인정되나, 다른 한편, 앞서 든 증거들 및 을마 제8내지 12호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 보태어 보면, 피고6. J은 피고5. I의 조합원 권리(402호)를 매수하고 종후권리가 등을 확인하고 다른 조합원들과 마찬가지로 중도금 대출 및 대납금을 추후 정산하기로 하는 방식으로 위 402호를 분양받은 사실, 이 사건 조합이 위 피고에게 보낸내용증명에도 ‘J 조합원'이라 기재되어 있는 사실이 인정되는 이상, 피고6. J은 조합원 분양계약에따라 위 402호를 분양받은 계약인수자의 지위에있다고 봄이 상당하다.따라서 이와 다른 전제에서 이 사건 조합과 사이 에서 외환은행대출금을 포함한 분양대금 정산이나법무사 수수료와의 상계를 주장하는 위 피고의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.피고17. U506호에 관하여 본래 분양계약을 체결하 였던 피고 16. T이 계약 체결 당일인 2008.8. 28. 분양대금을 이미 완납하였고, 이후 이 사건 조합은 필요에 의하여2009. 1. 14. 피고16. T과 사이에 새로조합원 분양계약서를 작성하기는 하였으나, 이는 통정허위표시에 의한 것으로무효이다.위 피고는 분양대금을 완납한 피고16. S 의 조합원 지위를 인수하여 소유권이전등기를 경료한 것이고, 위 피고와 이 사건 조합 사이의 소송(인천지방법원 2013가소102322)에서도 그와 같이 판단되었으므로, 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.갑 제5호증의 10의 기재에 의하면, 506호에 관하여 피고 16. T이 조합원 분양계약을 체결한 사실이 인정되고, 위 피고가 피고 16. T의 조합원지위를인수하여 소유권이전등기를 경료한 이상 위 조합원 분양계약상의 지위를 인수한 것으로 판단되며,을가 제47호증의 1, 2의 각 기재만으로는 피고 16.T과의 조합원 분양계약에 날인한 원고가 그와 같은 분양대금 사전완납처리 등에 동의하였다는 사실을 인정하기 어렵고, 나아가 위 조합원 분양계약이 통정허위표시라면 이는 통정허위인 조합원분양계약에 날인하여 권리를 가지는 제3자인 원고에 대하여 대항할 수 없어, 원고에 대하여 무효를주장할 수 없으므로, 위 피고의 주장은 이유 없다.피고2 7 .AE위 피고는 피고26. AD가 체결한 804호 에 대한 조합원 분양계약을 인수하였고,이자 등 대납금 부분은 이미 이 사건 조합이 권리를 행사하였으며, 관련 사해행위 취소소송에서 위 피고에 대한 원고의 대위 청구가 일부 인용된 부분인‘68,562,160원 및 그 중 10,560,328원에 대하여 2013. 5. 17.부터 2016. 5. 11.까지는 연 5%의, 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 15%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈' 부분은 청구취지를 감축하여야한다.위 피고가 804호에 대한 조합원 분양계약 인수를 자인하는 이상 앞서 주요 주장에서 판단한 바와같이 지정계좌 약정에 반하는 이 사건 조합과의별도 소송 결과나, 소송물이 다른 관련 사해행위 취소소송에서의 소송 결과가 반영되어야 한다는 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.피고3 5 .AM위 피고는 2009. 1. 9, 1003호에 관해 조합원 분양계약을 체결한 뒤, 2009. 2.26. 황수련과 공동으로 인천 남구 B 대1,795m2 중 3.5/543를 공동매수(지분비율은 위 피고가 95%인 332.5/54,300)하였고, 그 무렵 이 사건 조합과 사이에조합원분담금에 관한 표와 게약금 및 잔금 납부시기에 관한 표를 변경하는 방법으로 기존 분양계약을 변경하였다.이후 변경한 분양대금을 완납하고 2011. 9. 5. 원고로부터 입주증을 교부받았다.을아 제1 내지 3호증의 기재에 의하면, 위 피고가 조합원 분양계약 체결 후 추가지분을 매수한 사실은 인정되나, 앞서 판단한 바와 같이 그와 같은지분비율의 변경으로 인해 조합원 분담금이 변경된다는 점에 관하여 시공자인 원고의 동의를 얻지않은 이상, 대금변경은 조합원 분양계약에 반하여효력이 없고, 을아 제4, 6호증의 기재만으로는, 원고가 계약변경 및 변경된 계약에 기초한 정산에동의하였다고 보기 어렵고(대금이 변경된 신규 표에는 원고를 제외한 위 피고와 조합의 날인 뿐이다), 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없는 이상 위 피고의 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.피고6 4 .BP피고 64. BP 은 2007. 9. 20. 147,000,000원, 2007.9.21.53,000,000원(남편 CA을 통하여)을 현 조합장인 피고47. AY에게 대여하였고,위 대여금의 변제명목으로 2009. 8. 28.C 1703호의 분양계약을 이 사건 조합과체결한 뒤, 위 대여금을 포함하여 분양대금을 정산하고 조합으로부터 완납 영수증을 받았고, 이후 조합과의 지급명령절차에서도 이러한 사정이 감안되어18,897,223원으로 미지급 금액이 최종적으로 합의되었으므로, 원고의 주장은이유 없다.또한 관련 사해행위취소사건에서 일부 인용된 부분은 중복청구이다.갑 제5호증의 56의 기재에 의하면, 위 피고는 2009. 8. 28. 1703호에 관하여 원고의 날인이 있는 조합원 분양계약을 체결하였고, 위 분양계약에는 위와 같은 피고47. AY에 대한 대여금 등은 반영되지 아니한 사실이 인정되는 이상, 위 피고가주장하는 지정계좌 이외의 정산(당시 조합원에 불과한 피고47. AY에 대한 사전 대여금 정산, 외환은행 대출금, 지급명령 절차에서의 감액)은 모두조합원 분양계약에 반한다 보이므로, 위 피고의주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.소송물이 다른 관련 사해행위 취소소송에서의 소 송 결과가 반영되어야 한다는 주장은 받아들이지아니한다.

C. Determination on the amount of individual bonds

(1) Method of calculation

A) In calculating the individual claim amount against the Defendants, the Plaintiff shall calculate the outstanding amount by deducting the amount deposited in the designated account after aggregating the contributions of each member, the intermediate payment interest, the late payment, and the moving expenses, and then deducting the amount deposited from the designated account (attached Form 1 and 2 claim amount). The damages for delay of the sale price calculated on May 16, 2013, which is the date of the lawsuit in this case, and the amount of delay of the sale price calculated on the basis of the sale contract as of May 16, 2013, by adding up 2-1 debt certificate (amount of late payment) by each business agreement in this case (amount of late payment) 2-2 debt certificate (lease 3) , which is the expiration date of the designation period of occupancy from August 31, 201 to May 16, 2013, by 10 to 20% of the total annual interest payment and late payment damages from 10% of the outstanding amount and late payment damages from 10% of the 20% of the total amount claimed 1 to 2.3% of the claim.2.

B) However, among the Plaintiff’s claim for the late payment charges and damages for delay, ① the rate of delay damages to be applied to the Mutual Association members’ contributions (if the rate exceeds six months from the payment date) is 17.35% per annum as acknowledged earlier, 18% per annum for the Mutual Association members’ contributions out of the outstanding amounts.

The part claiming damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17.35% is without merit within the above 17.35%, and it is difficult to recognize that the association and its members agreed to pay damages for delay of the repayment of the intermediate payment, the late payment, the late payment, and the moving expenses (no separate contract related to the interest payment, the late payment, and the repayment of the moving expenses was submitted, and the above interest rate is the rate specified in the business agreement between the association and the association of this case, and the association of this case is obligated to reflect it in the agreement with the association members through the general meeting resolution of the association members. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone does not reveal any other circumstance that the association of this case is deemed to have resolved to comply with the above interest rate or agreed separately with the association members, and there is no other evidence to recognize it, and there is no reason to conclude the interest rate calculated at the rate of 18% per annum on the part of the above outstanding payment, the late payment, the late payment, and the late payment, the late payment, and the repayment amount calculated at the rate of 18% per annum.

In addition, pursuant to the main text of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015; effective Oct. 1, 2015); and Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the same Act, the part demanding the payment of delayed payment calculated at the rate exceeding 15% per annum for the interest after October 1, 2015 for the late payment of intermediate payment and the repayment of moving expenses out of the outstanding amounts.

2) The quoted amount

A) Accordingly, Defendant 3. G, Defendant 4.H, Defendant 5.I, Defendant 7.K, Defendant 9.M, Defendant 10. N, Defendant 11. P, Defendant 16. Te, Defendant 19.W, Defendant 20.X, Defendant AAA, Defendant 23. AAD, Defendant 26. AD, and Defendant AH, and the Defendant.

32. AJ, defendant 37. AO, defendant 39. Q, defendant 42. AT, defendant 46.AX, defendant 51. BC, defendant 52. BD, defendant 62. BN, and defendant 65. B Q are without merit.

B) The remaining Defendants, other than the aforementioned Defendants, include the outstanding amount (including the late payment charges as of May 16, 2013), such as the total sale price, as indicated below in the table of discount amount (including the late payment charges as of May 16, 2013) ＋ ② the late payment charge for the sale price up to May 16, 2013 calculated by the Plaintiff according to the sale contract + (3) the late payment charge for the part payment + (4) the payment after the after payment of the part payment + the payment of moving expenses) and the late payment damages calculated at the rate of 17.35% per annum, the agreed interest rate for the remainder of the sale price from May 17, 2013 to the day of full payment; and (3) the late payment payment after the expiration of the designation period for occupancy from September 1, 201 to the day after September 1, 2011 to the day after the expiration of the designation period for occupancy is determined to have an obligation to pay 15% of the Defendant per annum.

【Adaptables

순번피고 (수인인경우 각자)호수인정금액(인정근거: 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제5, 39 내지 97호증, 변론 전체의 취지)합계금①조합원분담금 잔액② 2013. 5. 16.자 분양대금연체료③ 중도금이자후불금④ 이주비대여금1EB08,B0966,319,50829,502,32095,821,8362F102190,459,711190,459,7116J40247,866,57018,144,30010,702,22176,713,0918L40375,050,83025,151,63011,106,855111,309,31512O40490,198,33031,598,38010,656,3656,475,651138,928,726802171,300,00074,130,130245,430,130140494,122,52034,242,23010,410,1796,700,000145,474,929소계355,620,850139,970,74021,066,54413,175,651529,833,78513Q40655,015,65516,815,42010,892,29082,723,36514R50353,005,14916,244,9709,862,96179,113,08015S504193,922,00038,385,930232,307,93017u50695,623,37034,457,9008,186,600138,267,87018V60255,098,69033,479,1305,447,73594,025,55521Y70293,829,18033,510,50010,509,203137,848,88322z70393,709,39033,029,97010,844,352137,583,71224AB70481,666,51027,877,52010,851,22419,744,500140,139,75425AC70569,775,69228,322,7709,939,328621,000108,658,79027AE80448,087,00020,475,1609,070,56877,632,72828AF80586,455,73032,755,77011,151,80714,984,500145,347,80729AG90293,820,87033,170,28010,455,548137,446,69831Al90487,711,00030,472,24010,621,40113,648,000142,452,64133AK90693,450,84032,746,23010,516,3087,886,000144,599,37834AL100293,122,45033,011,88010,921,053137,055,38335AM100350,747,52817,199,2509,279,9377,886,00085,112,71536AN100475,997,62025,547,26010,695,349112,240,22938AP110237,663,38016,531,4009,213,93863,408,71840,41AR, AS110482,892,58231,929,72011,980,32812,229,000139,031,63043AU110519,853,1236,652,4709,891,16836,396,76144AV120286,409,15034,714,99010,897,093132,021,23345AW12036,104,70714)10,762,9857,886,00024,753,69246AY120418,684,9904,136,8209,806,91882,711,000115,339,72848AZ120659,781,02023,643,11011,190,38113,648,000108,262,51149BA1302116,950,23048,151,72011,188,955176,290,90550BB130367,651,94021,116,0409,295,03413,982,000112,045,01453BE130699,585,80038,533,22010,893,391149,012,41154BF1402822,31615)7,797,6238,619,93955BG140353,175,64116,845,8309,912,93879,934,40956BH1406198,390,00085,900,74012,480,000296,770,74057BI1502124,953,35047,046,2108,071,442180,071,00258BJ15037,853,23316)10,608,38113,978,00032,439,61459,60BK,BL150586,915,64030,159,38010,869,05111,473,000139,417,07161BM15060 17)15,008,90815,008,90863BO160598,672,72037,790,00010,510,569146,973,28964BP170390,518,51034,536,34011,189,717136,244,56766BR170412,068,9189,555,5609,418,54531,043,023

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s respective claims against the remaining Defendants, excluding G, 4.H, 5.I, 7.K, 9.M, 10. N, 11. P, 16.W, 19.M, 20.A., 23. AD, 30. AH, 32. AH, 37. A. A., 39. A.T, 42.A., 42AT, 46. AX, 51. BC, 52. BD, 62 BN, and 65. BB, are reasonable, and each claim is dismissed on the grounds that the remainder is without merit.

30. AH, 32. AJ, 37. AO, 39. Q, 42.AT, 46. AX, 51. BC, 52. BD, 62. BN, 65. BN, and Q, all of which are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Dong-jin

Judges Senior fixed-ranking

Justices Kim Ha-young

1) The said association was established under the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets for the purpose of promoting a market reconstruction project in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B, and was authorized to establish a market reconstruction and improvement project association pursuant to Article 38 of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts on November 13, 2006 and Article 22 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Articles 13 and 16 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions

2) On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the instant association and the Plaintiff, as joint business operators, to implement the C development project as well as to appropriate the construction cost and business expenses in the sale price, but the agreement was nonexistent and terminated, thereby resulting in the instant construction contract.

3) On February 17, 2011, a list of the details of the payment of interest on intermediate payments and the payment of moving expenses calculated as of February 17, 201 is attached to the members.

4) Defendant 8. L, Defendant 13. Q, Defendant 55. BG, BU, and BV (this is also a joint and several surety of the instant construction contract and business agreement)

5) The Defendants, who submitted the notice of assignment of claims as reference materials after the closing date of argument and before the pronouncement date of the judgment in this case, shall be deemed to have given notice of assignment of claims in light

6) For the foregoing toxicity, the title section shall be described together with the Defendant’s title section.

7) Defendant 2. The Defendants who are Law Firm BW (Attorney in charge) by F and his attorney

8) Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na90421 Decision 14 1 to 4 14

9) As seen earlier, the Defendants rendered a judgment that did not recognize the assertion on the acquisition of claims based on the arbitral award and the judgment of execution.

10) The arguments below are mainly asserted by the defendants, who are law firms BW (Attorney in charge), as well as other defendants, or, as long as the legal principles are common, the main arguments that are rejected for toxicity are judged in a lump sum. Since then, the defendants' individual claims are not judged separately in determining the amount of individual claims.

11) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 6, 26, and 27, it seems that at the time of the general meeting of January 22, 2011, the instant union and its members had been aware of the lack of the construction cost to be paid to the Plaintiff.

12) However, on November 29, 2016, the "Adjustment of Claim Amount by Defendant" was finally determined as stated in the calculation method and the rate of damages for delay as stated in the application for correction of claim on February 13, 2014 through the written application for correction of claim on which the Plaintiff made a final determination as to the calculation method and the rate of damages for delay, and subsequently, unlike the above written application for correction of claim, it was stated that, unlike the above written application for correction of claim, the " uniformly the rate of damages for delay" is 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the date following the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case to the date of complete payment, and instead, it was stated that there was an error such as the error in

13) As sought by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall immediately deduct the designated account deposit money from the association members contributions in a way favorable to the Defendants.

14) According to Gap evidence 5-35, defendant 45's share of the cooperative member of W on May 16, 2013 is 202,984,00 won ( = 234,30,000 won in parcelling-out amount - 31,316,00 won in equity amount of the cooperative member - 209,682,083 won in the designated account deposit amount as requested by the plaintiff, if all of the above cooperative members deducts the above cooperative members from the above cooperative' share of the contribution, the amount of 6,698,083 won will remain from the loan deposit amount. The above balance would be 12,802,790 won in the cooperative's share of damages for delay calculated by the above defendant's favorable interest rate to the above defendant, and damages for delay would be 6,104,707 won in the remainder.

15) According to the evidence No. 5-44 of Defendant 54, Defendant 54’s partner contributions are KRW 96,342,00 (=234,30,000 of the parcelling-out amount - Total amount of KRW 127,958,00 of the partner’s contribution - Total amount of KRW 96,697,624, which is the designated account deposit amount, is deducted from the above partner’s contribution as requested by the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 35,624, which is 35,624, which is calculated by deducting the above balance from the above partner’s contribution amount. The amount of damages for delay calculated by 1,17,940, which is favorable to the above Defendant, is appropriated from KRW 1,17,940, which is 162,316.

16) According to the evidence No. 50 of the defendant 58, the share of the association members of the BJ on May 16, 2013 is KRW 193,922,00 ( = 231,00,000 of the parcelling-out amount - the share amount of KRW 37,078,00 of the association members - the share amount of KRW 37,078,00 of the association members). The amount of KRW 194,521,507, which is the designated account deposit amount, is deducted from the share of the association members as requested by the plaintiff, will remain 59,507,000 from the loan deposit amount. If the balance is appropriated from the share of the association members calculated by May 16, 2013 that is favorable to the above defendant, the balance of delay damages is KRW 7,85,233,2333,70.

17) According to Gap evidence 5-3, defendant 61's partner contributions are 195,090,000 won ( = 231,00,000 won in parcelling-out amount - 35,910,000 won in equity amount - 208,578,091 won in designated account deposit amount is deducted from the partner's contribution amount as requested by the plaintiff. If all of the remaining balance is deducted from the partner's contribution amount as requested by the plaintiff, 13,48,091 won will remain from the loan deposit amount. The amount of damages for delay calculated by May 16, 2013 with a high interest rate of damages for delay to the defendant is 5,113,080 won in total, 23,375,000 won in full,383,919 won in full, as requested by the plaintiff, the remaining balance is 190,008 won in full,000 won in full.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.