In a case where Party A’s Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association held an extraordinary general meeting and held a resolution to revise a management and disposal plan to the members of the association, and separately marked the apartment unit sales household of the entire apartment units, which are to be sold to the members, as “the section for preferential allotment of the members of the association” and separately marked them as “the section for general allotment of the members of the association,” but thereafter, Party B, the head of the association, conducted a unit drawing of an apartment unit, including the general allotment section, and Party B, etc., who was allocated the households of the general allotment section among the members of the association, sought damages against Party B and the association, the case holding that Party B and the association is jointly liable to compensate Party B for damages suffered by Party B, etc. due to unlawful Dong and unit lottery.

A Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association held an extraordinary general meeting and held a resolution to amend a management and disposal plan, and separately marked the apartment unit sales household of the entire apartment units, which are the building expected to be sold to its members, as “the section for preferential allotment of cooperative members” and separately marked them as “the section for preferential allotment of cooperative members,” among all households of the apartment units, which are the whole apartment units to be sold to its members at the time of resolution on the amendment of the management and disposal plan. However, the following cases are cases where Party B, the head of the association, carried out the apartment unit lot for the apartment unit, including Party B, and Party B, etc., who was allocated the household unit of the general

The case holding that since the members of the Gap association have the right to claim the sale of housing units, etc. under the management and disposal plan, the members of the association shall have the right to share the house units under the management and disposal plan, it is unlawful that Eul set the preferential allotment section of the association members and implemented the house units drawing including the general unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit

Articles 24(3)10 (see current Article 45(1)10), 47(1) (see current Article 73(1)), 48 (see current Article 74), and 50 (see current Article 79) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 8, 2017); Articles 35, 393, 750, 756(1), and 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Visit-at-Law, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Alternative 2-3 District Housing Reconstruction and Maintenance Project Association and one other (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 5, 2020

1. The Defendants jointly pay 13,058,761 won to Plaintiff 1, 13,428,761 won to Plaintiff 3, 626,428 won to Plaintiff 4, 13,058,761 won to Plaintiff 5, and 21,234,761 won to Plaintiff 6, and 5% per annum from January 1, 2019 to July 10, 2020, and 12% per annum from the following to the date of full payment.

2. All of the claims filed by Plaintiffs 2 against the Defendants and the remaining claims filed by Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 against the Defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and the Defendants shall be borne by the said Plaintiffs; the remainder shall be borne by the Defendants; and the portion arising between the Plaintiffs 2 and the Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff 2.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to each of the Plaintiffs 50,000,000 won with 12% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

Defendant 2-3 District Housing Reconstruction and Rearrangement Project Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is established for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project (hereinafter “instant project”) with a size of 19,348.6m2 in Jung-gu (number omitted) as a rearrangement zone. Defendant 2 is the head of the Defendant Union, and the Plaintiffs are the members of the Defendant Union or the persons who acquired the status of a buyer from the members of the Plaintiff Union.

B. Establishment of the defendant association and progress of the project

After obtaining authorization for the establishment of the head of the Gu among Daegu Metropolitan City on March 9, 2005, the Defendant Cooperative obtained authorization for the implementation of the instant project from the head of the Gu on September 7, 2005, and obtained authorization for the management and disposal on April 16, 2007, but obtained authorization for the implementation of the project following the alteration of the rearrangement plan around June 10, 2015. The Defendant Cooperative held an extraordinary general meeting (hereinafter “instant special meeting”) on October 31, 2015, and passed a resolution on the amendment of the management and disposal plan (hereinafter “instant management and disposal plan”), and the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City among the Daegu Metropolitan City on November 27, 2015, approved the said plan and announced it on November 30, 2015.

C. Details of the instant management and disposition plan

1) The instant management and disposal plan provides for the standards for sale to the members of the constructed facilities as follows.

Article 6 (Standards for Management and Disposal Plans (Amendment) (Revised Plan) (1) Buildings and sites scheduled for parcelling-out

A person shall be appointed.

Public announcement of an application for sale (change) on June 22, 2015: The period for filing an application for sale (change) on June 22, 2015: The apartment subject to sale on June 29, 2015 through July 31, 2017 (33 days), shall be classified into 59 square meters, 59 square meters, 84 square meters, 84 square meters, and 84 square meters, according to the classification of housing sizes, and the order of priority shall be determined at the wishes of the members. 8. Whether the number of members of a multi-family housing (multi-family housing), the number of members of a housing unit, the number of members of a housing unit, the number of members of a housing unit, the number of members of a housing unit, the number of members of a housing unit, the number of members of a housing unit, the number of members of a housing unit, and the number of members of a housing unit, the number of members of a housing unit, and the number of members of a housing unit.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Where two or more members of an association jointly own a house with co-ownership shares, only one representative who has reported to the association shall be deemed to be the members of the association, and only one house shall be supplied. 3. Where only one member of the association has applied for the sale of a house without being supplied with the number of houses owned by one or more members of the association, the remaining house may be settled by summing up the amount of rights of the house owned not subject to the Cash Liquidation Standards prescribed in the management and disposal plan. 4. Housing and commercial buildings are owned at the same time, and housing and commercial buildings are sold in lots according to the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the articles of association and municipal ordinances. 1. 2. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 3. 2. 3. 1. 2. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 3rd of the number of houses to be supplied by the association members of the association, among the remaining houses to be supplied by lot.

2) At the time of the instant special meeting, the Defendant Union issued to the members of the association a book with the title “special meeting (revision of the management and disposition plan)” containing the instant management and disposition plan, and the booker [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] the appraisal of new construction buildings (hereinafter “the instant supplement data”). The supplement data of this case contain the location map for each Dong and Dong, and the sale price for each Dong and unit. The supplement data of this case contain 35 m2, 59 m2, 35 m2, 84 m2, 44 m2, 59 m2) households among the entire households, among the total households, are divided into the household units with green indication (hereinafter “household units”) and the household units with 113 m2 m2,59 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,84 m25 m2,000 m2,000.

(d) Concluding the same kind and number of lots and sales contract for its members;

1) After the instant special general meeting, on December 30, 2015, the Defendant Cooperative conducted a dong and unit drawing (hereinafter “instant dong and unit drawing”) for an apartment unit in which some of its members participated, and notified the members of the result on January 4, 2016. After which, the Defendant Cooperative entered into a general sale agreement for three days from January 25, 2016, the Defendant Cooperative entered into the general sale agreement.

2) From February 15, 2016 to February 17, 2016, members, including the Plaintiffs, entered into a sales contract for apartment units allocated according to the result of the instant Dong and lake lottery. The Plaintiffs are the same as the unit and unit allocated by the Plaintiffs, and the unit sale price of the relevant household is as follows.

Plaintiff 1 (6), 106, 106, 164.733, 275,630, 200, 206, 84.9760 B- 162, 162.185,000, 284.9760, 3106, 3106, 84.9760, 167.760, 267, 260, 407, 407, 267, 407, 407, 267, 407, 265, 207, 165, 207, 160, 107, 267, 260, 107, 407, 267, 265, 205, 165, 197, 197, 26365, 1065, 165, 16765, 167, 7

Note 6) Plaintiff 1

Note 7) Plaintiff 2

(e) Completion and occupancy of an apartment;

On August 24, 2018, the Defendant Cooperative newly built and obtained authorization for completion of the instant apartment units with the size of the 2nd underground floors, the 467 households and the 198th underground floors, the 29th underground floors, and the 2nd underground floors, the 3rd underground floors (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment units”) on the land outside Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and the 198th ground. On December 10, 2018, the relocation announcement of the instant apartment units was made.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 13 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

Defendant 2, as the representative of the Defendant Union, which is the project executor of the instant project, conducted the drawing only for the portion allocated to the members pursuant to the instant management and disposal plan when drawing lots, but against this, committed an illegal act by drawing lots among the households prior to the pertinent ordinary unit, and by allocating the Plaintiffs to the general parcelling-out section, and the Defendant Union neglected to pay due attention and supervision to prevent the Defendant 2 from committing a violation. Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay the Plaintiffs the damages for the illegal act, and the damages for delay.

B. The Defendants

1) The portion of the preferential allotment indicated in the instant separate allotment is merely indicated in a manner that makes it difficult to understand the number of members who applied for each grade, and does not have to preferentially assign specific households to the members at the time of selling apartment units in the instant case. Even if a specific apartment unit is not determined, it may be changed according to the result of consultation with the construction project.

2) The Plaintiffs received without any objection from the result of the drawing of the instant East and heading, and concluded a sales contract with the Defendant’s association, and thereafter, to seek damages against the Defendants later goes against the good faith principle.

3) The Plaintiff 2 acquired the sales right from Nonparty 1 to 106 Dong-dong (number 23 omitted) after concluding the sales contract in accordance with the result of the instant unit and unit lottery, and did not incur damages due to the instant unit and unit lottery.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) The illegality of the drawing of the Dong and heading of this case

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged earlier, the members of the Defendant Union have the right to claim the sale of housing, etc. under the instant management and disposal plan, and thus, the members of the Defendant Union shall have the right to claim the sale of housing, etc. under the management and disposal plan. However, despite the resolution of the instant management and disposal plan on the purport that Defendant 2 determined the preferential allotment section of the members and intended to draw the same and several houses to the members of the association, it is unlawful to implement the same and several lots of housing, including the general lots of housing units, to deprive the members of the right to share the same and several lots

A) Article 10 (Criteria for Sale of Building Facilities) of the instant management and disposal plan provides that “The low-rises (1 to 2 floors) and the members who wish to move to a dong other than the preferential allotment section among the sections other than the preferential allotment section of the members may apply for the preferential allotment by consultation with the work executor at the time of the application for the preferential allotment by 10 days prior to the date of the unit allotment: Provided, That in the event of competition, the method prescribed in paragraph (2) 2 shall apply.” Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the above provision is merely a general theory that “where the Defendant association decided the preferential allotment section by consultation with the construction work, if the members wish to do so, if the members want to take another dong and unit that are not included in the preferential allotment section, the members may take the preferential allotment prior consultation with the construction work in advance.” However, it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ assertion in that there is no basis for such interpretation, and in fact, the Defendant association did not have established the preferential allotment after the instant special meeting of this case.

B) In the instant special meeting, the Defendants asserted that the contents of the instant supplement data are not divided and confirmed among the members, on the ground that “The members of the association are determined by each grade, and the general allotment price has been changed, but since the current status of the application for parcelling-out and the future process have been changed, the contents of the instant supplement data will not be determined separately and confirmed the preferential allotment section, on the basis that they explained to the members that “I would like to start once after sufficiently reviewing the distribution section in the process of the entire members’ application for parcelling-out and the contents of the allocation section before the commencement of the construction project and the commencement of the construction project, and after sufficiently reviewing before the public allotment approval, I would like to start once again.” However, the above contents appear to have been notified of the possibility of changing the parcelling-out price because they made a statement by the members of the general meeting in the explanation process of the selling price by each unit and unit listed in the instant supplement data. It is difficult for Defendant Union to deem

C) Even if the Defendant Union announced the purport that the “section of preferential allotment of the members” indicated in the instant supplementary data at the time of the resolution of the instant management and disposal plan, but later, it may be modified according to the result of the consultation with the construction, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the members of the instant apartment complex have passed a resolution to allocate the sales household to the entire households of the instant apartment complex. The instant management and disposal plan may be corrected or modified without undergoing re-call and re-public inspection at a general meeting (Article 18(1)), but it cannot be deemed that the determination of the allotment of the members of the sales household and the portion of preferential allotment does not fall under the instant case (Article 18(1)). Accordingly, insofar as the consultation with the construction company did not undergo a resolution by formulating a re-management and disposal plan (amended) as a result of the consultation with the construction company, the Defendant Union or Defendant 2 is obligated to draw a unit of the sales household and unit of the members only for the “section of the members” indicated in the instant separate annexed data.

D) The Defendants asserted that, as much as possible, the Defendant Cooperative attempted to set the portion of preferential allotment of cooperative members through consultation with the contractor and to allocate the same to the housing type, but the interests of the cooperative members could not be raised in the course of consultation with the contractor, which is an important party to the project of this case. However, even if the Defendants’ assertion is true, Defendant 2 should be allocated preferential allotment in accordance with the instant management and disposition plan, whether the cooperative members will bear additional contributions, whether the cooperative members will change the portion of preferential allotment, whether the cooperative members will remove the portion of preferential allotment, and whether the cooperative members will remove the portion of preferential allotment and draw lots to the entire household, thereby promoting the work by obtaining a resolution of the general meeting, and cannot arbitrarily exclude or modify the contents of the preferential allotment.

E) On May 31, 2018, at the ordinary meeting of the Defendant Union held on May 31, 2018, Nonparty 3 presented an agenda "case of the decision on the compensation scheme for low-rises". As to this, Nonparty 3 stated, "In the case of the association book of the branch, at least three floors have been drawn by lot, but I would like to know exactly from why the first floor was drawn," and Nonparty 4 stated, "The low-rises problem of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of this case."

F) The Defendants asserted that, without having agreed with the construction project, the entire apartment units (excluding six households with the place of withholding) failed to determine the portion of the preferential allotment, the entire apartment units (excluding six households with the place of withholding), but, in the case of 104 m2 and 84 m2 among the cooperative members’ preferential allotment section, 37 households among 40 households, among 104 m2 and 84 m2, 36 households and 84 m2 in the case of 105 m2 and 84 m2. However, in the case of the 106 m2 and 84 m2 in the case of the 106 m2 and less than 10 households, the instant m2 and m2 were allocated to less than 10 households in most cases, not by the method of the preferential allotment of the cooperative members’ portion and the general allotment portion, but by the method of adding the same number of households from the general allotment section after deducting some of the members’ preferential allotment. In addition to the Defendants’ claim for the number of lots.

2) Whether the good faith principle is violated

The fact that members, including the plaintiffs, entered into a contract for the sale of apartment units allocated according to the result of the drawing lots of the above case, is as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiffs were taking legal measures, such as provisional disposition, to prevent the purchase of apartment units by the defendant union. However, the following circumstances, i.e., the defendant 2 notified the members on Jan. 14, 2016 that it can be classified as cash liquidation pursuant to the relevant laws and management and disposal plans if the contract is not entered into within the prescribed period, and that the Defendants were not entitled to receive compensation from the defendant union's association's members on the following grounds: Article 47 (1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (wholly amended by Act No. 14567, Feb. 1, 201) and Article 12 (1) 1 of the Management and Disposal Ordinance No. 20000, supra.

3) Claim for damages by the transferee of the right of sale

The right to claim damages due to the drawing lots of Dong and Dong can be deemed to have the nature of the right to claim damages due to a tort. However, in a case where the status as a contracting party is transferred to a third party by transfer, only the legal relationship premised on the contractual status is transferred, and the right to claim damages due to a tort is not naturally transferred to a third party without any separate assignment of claims. Therefore, the transferee cannot be deemed to exercise the right to claim damages due to the mere fact that a partner, who held the right to claim damages due to the drawing lots of Dong and Dong, transfers the status of the sales contract to a third party without any separate assignment of claims. However, the transferee can exercise the right to claim damages due to the purchase of the right to claim damages due to the purchase of the right at the higher price, considering the fact that the number of Dong and Dong lots of this case is illegal and the transferee acquired the status of the assignee

Although the Defendant Union entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 1 on December 9, 2016 regarding the instant apartment 106 unit (number 23 omitted), Nonparty 2 succeeded to the rights and obligations under the sales contract with Nonparty 1 on January 11, 2017, and Plaintiff 2 became the buyer of the said household on the order from Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 2 on January 11, 2017, and Plaintiff 2 became the buyer of the said household. Meanwhile, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff 2 acquired the status under the sales contract as above and transferred the right to claim damages from Nonparty 1 or Nonparty 2 to the instant apartment 106 unit (number 23 omitted) upon receiving the status under the sales contract as above. Accordingly, Plaintiff 2 is not entitled to claim compensation against the Defendants for damages incurred by being allocated the instant apartment 106 unit (number 23 omitted) as a result of the instant unit and unit drawing. This part of the Defendants’ assertion is with merit.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant 2 is liable to compensate for damages caused by illegal drawing of the same kind and numbers of the instant case to Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant Union has given considerable attention and supervision to prevent Defendant 2’s violation, and the Defendant Union has a duty to compensate for damages suffered by the said Plaintiffs in collaboration with Defendant 2.

B. Scope of liability for damages

1) The base point for calculating the amount of damages

A) The base point of time for calculating the amount of damages caused by a tort shall be deemed to be the time of the tort. However, if there is time interval between the time of the tort and the time of the occurrence of the result, the time when the tort was completed, i.e., the time of the completion of the tort in view of the completion of the tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da45605, Jun. 15, 2007, etc.).

B) As seen earlier, the unit numbers of the instant apartment units are illegal and invalid by allocating the households of the general apartment units that are not included in the unit allotment section as stipulated in the management and disposal plan to the Plaintiffs, and thus, Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall have the right to seek a new unit drawing and allotment of the instant apartment units to the Defendant Cooperative. However, at the latest, around December 2018, where the sales contract of the instant apartment units was concluded and the transfer announcement of the instant apartment units was made, it is reasonable to view that it was impossible for the said Plaintiffs to seek an implementation of the unit drawing and unit numbers in accordance with the management and disposal plan against the Defendant Cooperative as to the instant apartment units. Accordingly, at that time, the damages suffered by the said Plaintiffs due to the Defendants’ tort have been specifically determined.

(ii)an amount of loss equivalent to the difference between the average expected profit and

A) The burden of proving the amount of damage is against the Plaintiffs, who are the victims of a claim for damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da18850, Jul. 28, 2011). However, in a claim for damages arising from a tort lawsuit, where, even though the existence of property damage is recognized, it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage by taking into account all relevant indirect facts, such as the relationship between the parties revealed by the outcome of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleading, the background leading up to the tort and the occurrence of property damage therefrom, the nature of the damage, and various circumstances after the occurrence of the damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6951, Jun.

B) In consideration of the fact that the members, including Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, were entitled to allocation of 156 households designated as the preferential allotment section in the instant management and disposal plan, and that the sale price varies depending on their respective grades, directions, and the number of floors, it is reasonable to view that the damages suffered by the above plaintiffs due to the Defendants’ unlawful Dong-ho lottery were the difference between the average expected profit calculated by taking into account the market price and sale price of the apartment of 156 households, which the above plaintiffs could have been allocated among the apartment of this case as of the time of the occurrence of the damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da45605, Jun. 15, 2007, etc.).

C) According to the aforementioned evidence, the number of households by Dong, square and structural unit of the instant apartment and the number of members allocated and the general allotment households of the instant apartment are as follows.

The number of union members (number of household units) of Dong square-type / Dong-type / Dong-type / Dong-type 101, 59A-type 30, 59B- 361 (number 6 omitted) / 35 [excluding number 6 omitted] 102, 59A-type 3030, 59A-4035 [excluding number 1 through 5 omitted] 5 (number 1 through 5 omitted) 5 (number 5) 5 (number 1 through 5 omitted) 104, 84A- 430 (number 7 through 9 omitted) 35 (number 7 through 9 omitted) 105, 84A-type 437 (number 7 through 9 omitted) 105 (number 10 through 12), 194-type 138 (Type 41 through 46, 194-type 148 (Type 46) omitted] 35 (number 141 to 4128 ( type 4).

The members may apply for the application for the purchase of the apartment of this case to the members of each level of square meters (84 square meters or 59 square meters) and the internal structure (in the case of Class A or B, and in the case of Class A, 3, and 4, the last place among the apartment units). An individual Dong could not be designated. Plaintiffs 1, 3, 5, and 6 selected 84 square meters, and Plaintiff 4 selected 59 square meters, respectively. Thus, the number of households that can be expected for each type of square and internal structure selected by the above plaintiffs are as follows.

Of the 84A-104 Dong-type 43 households located in the main sentence, 35 households excluding (10 through 12 omitted) - (106 Dong-type 13 through 15 omitted) - 36 households excluding (13 through 15 omitted) among the 37 households of 37 households with the exception of (10 through 12 omitted) - 40 households among the 39 households with the exception of (13 through 15 omitted) of 84A-type 103 Dong-type 403 households with the exception of (13 through 5 omitted).

According to the purport of Gap 2, 16-1, 2, 10, 2, 10, 30, 10, 20, 10, 30, 104, 105, 37, 36, 106, 35-10, 107, 30, 106, 107, 208, 10, 201, 30, 106, 107, 30, 107, 106, 208, 30, 106, 207, 10, 306, 205, 10, 306, 106, 106, 306, 106, 106, 307, 106, 106, 307, 106, 208, 194, 206,

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly liable to pay damages for losses calculated at the rate of 13,058,761 won and 13,428,761 won and 13,428,761 won to Plaintiff 4,628 won, and 13,058,761 won to Plaintiff 5, and 21,234,761 won and 21,761 won to Plaintiff 6, respectively, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 1, 2019 to July 10, 2020, which is the date of this decision where it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the Defendants’ obligation to perform, and as from the next day to the date of full payment, damages for delay calculated at the rate of 120% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Encouragement, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day of this case’s delivery of duplicate damages, but from the point of time to the damages for damages due to 21618.

4. Conclusion

Each claim against the Defendants by Plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 against the Defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition. Each of the remaining claims against the Defendants by the said Plaintiffs and the claims against the Defendants by Plaintiffs 2 are dismissed in entirety as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Average Expected Income: omitted

[Attachment 2] Publication Price: omitted

[Attachment 3] Selling price: omitted

Judges Yang Sang-ho (Presiding Judge)

(1) Upon filing an application for amendment of the purport of the claim made on October 31, 2018, the Plaintiffs sought confirmation of invalidity of the number of union members of the Housing Reconstruction Partnership in 2-3 Area 2-3, instead of having been implemented on December 30, 2015, and the Defendants sought reimbursement of KRW 50,000,000 for each of the Plaintiffs jointly and severally, and the Defendants sought withdrawal of the aforementioned main claim through an application for amendment of the purport of the claim made on January 10, 2020, and the Defendants sought payment of KRW 50,000,000 for each of the Plaintiffs, and damages for delay. In light of the details of the Plaintiff’s claim and the reasons for the claim, the Plaintiffs’ claim made to each of the Plaintiffs jointly and severally, and thus, sought reimbursement of KRW 50,000,000 for each of the instant claims.

Note 2) 35 households with the exception of (number 1 to 5 omitted) 103 Dong 40 households

Note 3) 101 Dong (No. 6 omitted)

Note 4) 40 households with the exception of (number 7 to 9 omitted), 105 and 40 households with the exception of (number 10 to 12 omitted) among the 104 Dong 43 households, 37 households with the exception of (number 10 to 12 omitted) and 36 households with the exception of (number 13 to 15 omitted) from among the 106 Dong 39 households.

Note 5) 105 Dong (No. 16 to 19 omitted), 106 Dong (No. 20 to 22 omitted)

(6) The Defendant Union concluded a sales contract with Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 3 as a joint purchaser for 106 Dong-dong (No. 14 omitted), but Plaintiff 1 succeeded to the rights and obligations under the sales contract with Plaintiff 3 for 106 Dong-dong (No. 14 omitted) on May 19, 2016.

7) The Defendant Union entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 1 for 106 Dong (No. 23 omitted). However, on December 9, 2016, Nonparty 2 succeeded to the rights and obligations under the sales contract for 106 Dong (No. 23 omitted) from Nonparty 1 and Plaintiff 2 from Nonparty 2 on January 11, 2017.

8) In principle, the average expected profit and actual profit should be calculated on the basis of the market price. However, in the case of the apartment of this case, the market price at the time of the occurrence of damages can not be known.