204 Doz. 9377 Damage, Claim

○○ Apartment Reconstruction Housing Association

Address omitted

Representative of the partnership 00

Attorney ○-○, et al.

1. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers);

Address omitted

2. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

3. ○○○ ( omitted).

Address omitted

4. 00 (Omission of Resident Registration Numbers)

Address omitted

5. ○○○ ( omitted).

Address omitted

6. ○○○ ( omitted).

Address omitted

7. ○○○ ( omitted).

Address omitted

8. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

9. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers).

Address omitted

10. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

11. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

12. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers).

Address omitted

13. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers).

Address omitted

14. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers).

Address omitted

15. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

16. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

17. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

18. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

19. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

20. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

21. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

22. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

23. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

24. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

25. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

26. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

27. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers)

Address omitted

28. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers)

Address omitted

29. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

30. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

31. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

32. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

33. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

34. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

35. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

36. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

37. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers)

Address omitted

38. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers)

Address omitted

39. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers)

Address omitted

40. ○○○ ( omitted)

41. ○○○ ( omitted)

Defendant 40, 41 omitted

42. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

43. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

44. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

45. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

46. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

47. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

48. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

49. ○○○ (Omission of resident registration numbers)

Address omitted

50. ○○○ ( omitted)

The address omitted.

51. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

52. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

53. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

54. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

55. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

56. ○○○ ( omitted)

Address omitted

57. ○○○ ( omitted)

The address omitted.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 56 Attorney Lee ○-○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

remaining Defendants (Law Firm 00,000)

Attorney O0O

May 11, 2006

June 15, 2006

1. Each claim for damages caused by the expenditure of the costs of lawsuit in this case and each claim for damages caused by the expenditure of the costs of execution shall be dismissed in entirety.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 23, Defendant 5, 12, 37, 35, 20, and 56, respectively, pay 16,166 won, the remaining Defendants, and 10,00,000 won, and 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of this sentencing to the day of full payment.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. Determination as to the assertion that the instant lawsuit is unlawful

With respect to the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendants, who are members of the Plaintiff Union, the Defendants asserted that the lawsuit should be dismissed as it is unlawful since it was brought without the resolution of the general meeting of partners.

On the other hand, Article 16 (1) of the rules of the housing association of the plaintiff association provides that "the general meeting shall appoint representatives, matters concerning business plans, the enactment and amendment of rules, the resolution of settlement report after completion of the project," and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the board of representatives shall decide on the appointment of officers, the right to decide the expulsion of members, the right to manage trust property, and all matters necessary for the operation of trust property rights and business." Thus, filing a lawsuit against the plaintiff association against the members constitutes "all matters necessary for the operation and business of trust property rights," it shall not be deemed unlawful because there is no resolution of the general meeting, and rather, according to the evidence No. 27, the board of representatives of the plaintiff association shall be held on August 22, 2003, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff association has made a resolution that the representative meeting of the plaintiff association should compensate for the damages after the conclusion of the resolution (the defendant is only four representatives qualified in the proviso of the representative representative certificate No. 27, and there is no legitimate evidence to support that the plaintiff association in this case.

B. Determination on each claim for damages due to the disbursement of litigation costs and costs of compulsory execution

The plaintiff's assertion against the defendant 4, etc. who refused to leave the court against the defendant 202Kahap855's provisional disposition order against the defendant 202Kahap855's rejection of withdrawal against the plaintiff 4 was rejected in the court of first instance as a result of the dispute by the defendants' participation on behalf of the above defendant 4, etc., but the plaintiff won in the court of second and third instances. The defendant 5 et al. suffered losses from 36,100,000 won out of the costs of lawsuit. The remaining defendants except the defendant 2 and 23 have the obligation to pay the plaintiff 6,16,666 won in proportion to the above costs of lawsuit, since the defendant 2 and 23 have the obligation to pay the plaintiff 6,100,000 won in proportion to the amount of the costs of lawsuit and the costs of lawsuit for which compulsory execution is decided separately from the costs of lawsuit and the costs of lawsuit are unlawful since the plaintiff 5,12,37,35,20,56 cannot be paid separately from the costs of lawsuit.

2. Determination on the merits (the increased interest on loans and the damages claim portion arising from the increase in the construction cost)

(a) Basic facts;

The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 through 7 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 13-1 through 61, Gap evidence 17 through 20 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 19, Eul evidence 20, 23 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 25-1, 25-2, Eul evidence 33, and the whole purport of arguments and arguments, and part of Gap evidence 26 are not believed.

(1) The 187 units of ○○○-dong, Busan, 000 ○○○○-dong, 000 3,368 m2, Dong 187 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) were completed on March 5, 1995. On March 5, 1995, 18, 180 members of the instant apartment owners attend an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association and establish the Plaintiff association through the procedures such as the opening of an inaugural general meeting for the establishment of a reconstruction association, and the establishment of an association by the head of the Busan Metropolitan City ○○○-dong, Busan, 00 m3,368 m2, and the Defendants are members of the Plaintiff association.

(2) The business plan submitted by the Plaintiff Union upon applying for authorization to establish the above 00 head of the 18th unit area (25.8 square meters) and the exclusive area of 18 square meters (25.8 square meters in lots) and 16.5 square meters (23.6 square meters in lots) and the total of 222 households with 16.5 square meters (22 square meters in lots) were constructed. However, there was no wish to construct the new apartment on the grounds that there was no economic feasibility, and the specific progress of the project was delayed due to the lack of opinions among the association members.

(3) On February 15, 2001, the Plaintiff’s head of the Plaintiff’s association contacted with the desired construction companies in the course of implementing the reconstruction project of the instant apartment. On February 15, 2001, the Plaintiff’s head of the association explained to the members of the association a proposal to participate in the reconstruction project. The content of the proposal was ① The size of reconstruction was 28.39 square meters (exclusive size 18.83 square meters), 21.87 square meters (exclusive size 14.51 square meters) of the parcelling-out area (exclusive size 190 households) and 28.39 square meters of the parcelling-out area (exclusive size 1.51 square meters) and the total amount of 190 households of the parcelling-out area (28.39 square meters of the exclusive size). The Plaintiff’s members’ contribution was 622 million won of the parcelling-out area, 21.87 square meters of the parcelling-out area (3.0 million won per household).

(4) On March 24, 201, 187 residents of the apartment complex of this case were present at the fourth 145 households; 00 members of the association were the specific contents of reconstruction business; i.e., 18 square meters and 14 square meters; 2) the Housing Fund provided 30% per annum (15 years grace) 300,000 won per annum; 25 million won per annum for moving expenses; 30,000 won per annum were selected as Si 10,000,000 from 187 households; 40,000 won per annum from 170,000 won per annum to 170,000 won per household (hereinafter referred to as "the foregoing 170,000 won per household"); 1.50,000 won per member of the association and 179,000 won per annums and 250,000 won per household (hereinafter referred to as "the foregoing 17600,0500,000,000) pary houses.

(5) On October 11, 2001, the Plaintiff Union obtained a modified approval for the housing construction project plan (hereinafter “instant approval”) from the head of the ○○○○○-gu Busan Metropolitan City on the content that the Plaintiff Union will supply “18.83 square meters (the exclusive size of 13 square meters) of the parcelling-out area of 171 square meters (the exclusive size of 14.51 square meters (the exclusive size of 9 square meters) and the total size of 19 households (hereinafter “the instant approval”).

B. Parties’ assertion

On the premise that there was a resolution of the general meeting with the consent of the contents of the rebuilding project plan approved in this case, the members of the Plaintiff association provide the land owned by the Plaintiff association in accordance with the housing association regulations. However, the Plaintiff did not leave the apartment house owned by the Defendants after the lapse of December 31, 2001, which was agreed by the Defendants to leave after the rebuilding resolution, and did not leave the apartment house owned by the Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff association suffered damages from the interest of KRW 2,225,000 borrowed from the national bank as moving expenses, and the construction cost of KRW 2,68,125,00,00, which is the execution company, demanded the increase of ○○ Construction Co., Ltd., the Defendants should pay the Plaintiff the money as part of the damages

The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s members, including the Defendants, did not have an exclusive area of 18 square meters and 13 square meters, and the exclusive area with the approval of the instant case was merely a reconstruction project with the exclusive area of 13 square meters and 9 square meters, so the approval of the instant case does not follow the said rebuilding resolution, and the approval of the instant case was made more disadvantageous than the said rebuilding resolution, and therefore, the Defendants did not have an obligation to obtain the approval of the instant case, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for reconstruction based on the premise that the Defendants had no obligation to

First, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's 1 and 2 were no evidence to acknowledge the resolution of the general assembly of this case, and the plaintiff's 1 and 2 were no different from that of the plaintiff's 1 and 2, the plaintiff's general assembly of this case's 1 and 2, and the plaintiff's 1 and 5's non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of the non-approval of this case 2.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for damages of this case filed on the ground of non-performance cannot be permitted under the principle of good faith on the ground that not only the contents of the rebuilding resolution at issue but also the contents of the rebuilding resolution at issue were no more unfavorable. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages of this case cannot be allowed under the principle of good faith without any further review (it is deemed that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the damage claimed by the plaintiff was actually realized to the plaintiff even if the defendants were acknowledged as

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case concerning each claim for damages caused by the disbursement of costs of lawsuit and each claim for damages caused by the disbursement of costs of compulsory execution are dismissed in its entirety, and all claims for damages caused by the increase of interest on loans and the increase of interest on construction cost due to the non-performance of obligation, which are the remainder of claims, are dismissed

The presiding judge, the Korean Judge;

Judges Park Young-young

Judge Yang Sung-nam