Plaintiff

U.S. Apartment Housing Reconstruction Project Association (Law Firm Dao, Attorney Choi Don-sub, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

September 20, 2012

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,605,347 won with 5% interest per annum from April 21, 2012 to October 18, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 34,029,099 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant association was authorized to establish the housing association from the Seocho-gu office on June 30, 2003, and was authorized to implement the project on April 30, 2005.

B. The shares of the employee are calculated by the formula of [the total revenue of the site and constructed facilities after the completion of the project - the total assessed value of the previous land and building x 100]. The estimated apportionment rate of the employee association was 130.46% on July 19, 2006, and 118.71% on October 17, 2008, and 134.41% on December 29, 201, according to the formulation and revision of the management and disposal plan.

C. The Plaintiff, as the owner of Seocho-gu Seoul (dong and lake omitted), classified the application for parcelling-out as an object of cash settlement because it did not apply for parcelling-out during the period of application for parcelling-out to the Defendant association. However, around September 1, 2011, the Plaintiff applied for parcelling-out around the first 469,087,180 won, and the Plaintiff was to pay the charges eight times from September 1, 201 to January 12, 2012. The Plaintiff paid the charges of KRW 469,087,180 and overdue interest of the charges of KRW 115,610,920 as well as the charges of KRW 46,90,00 as of June 29, 2011 and the due date of payment of the charges of KRW 93,87,180 as of September 15, 2011 are as follows.

1. 29.1, 129, 129, 129, 129, 127. 1, 627. 1, 627. 1, 627. 1, 627. 18. 3. 18, 20. 3. 18. 3. 18. 3. 18. 3. 18. 3. 18. 18, 20. 3. 3. 3. 4. 2. 3. 3. 1. 4, 205, 4. 8. 8. 3. 3. 18, 196 . 3. 18. 3. 18; 4. 18. 18. 3. 12. 89, 3208; 3089, 3208 . 12. 3. 14. 14. 7. 196

D. On February 29, 2012, the estimated expense rate was determined as 134.41% by the Seocho-gu Office with the authorization for the change of the administration and disposal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s charge was finally determined as 331,826,82, and the Plaintiff’s charge was finally determined as 137,260,358 won (=469,087,180 won-31,826,82 won) calculated by deducting acquisition tax, etc. from the difference between the initial charge and the changed charge (=469,087,180 won-31,826,822 won).

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including separate numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

The plaintiff paid interest 115,810,920 won (interest 115,610,920 won, interest 115,610,920 won, interest 469,087,180 won, interest 115,810,920 won (interest 115,610,920 won, and the amount 331,826,820 won). However, the plaintiff's assertion that the charge that the plaintiff is liable to pay is final and conclusive as 34,029,09 won (interest 115,810,920 won, interest 469,087,180 won, interest 115,810,920 won, interest 115,826,822 won of the original charge - interest 81,781,821 won for unjust enrichment or the defendant's right is calculated by negligence.

In light of the above facts, 137,260,358 won, the difference between 469,087,180 won and 331,826,82 won, which is the 46,900,000 won, which is the 43,373,178 won, which is the 46,373,178 won, which is June 29, 2011, and 93,887,180 won, which is the 93,87,180 won, which is the 46,90,000 won, which is the 43,373,178 won, and the 331,822 won, which are the 431,822 won, shall be borne by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's argument that the 46,900,000 won, which is the 29th of June 29, 2011, should be refunded to 30819.

1. 29. 1, 129, 129, 129, 18. 1. 1. 1. 26. 1, 627, 720 1, 505, 328. 7. 3. 18. 3. 6. 18. 3. 3. 6. 3. 6. 6. 3. 16. 3. 6. 3. 16. 3. 3. 4. 6. 4. 1. 1. 6. 3. 6. 3. 3. 1. 7. 1. 3. 3. 6, 196 . 3. 7. 18. 3. 16. 3. 18, 197 ; 5. 17. 3. 888 3. 12. 3082, 4. 15

Note 2) The late payment charge.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 6,605,347 won as unjust enrichment return and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 21, 2012 to October 18, 2012, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

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

Judges Transfer-type

(1) The Plaintiff paid KRW 43,671,518 on January 10, 2012, which was the subsequent date determined by the Defendant Union as 134.41%, and KRW 316,226,582 on January 12, 2012. Accordingly, the interest paid or to be paid by the Plaintiff appears to have not been considered in calculating the proportion.

Note 2) In calculating the overdue interest on the overpaid charges, ① the overdue interest on KRW 43,373,178 out of the charges of KRW 46,90,00,00, which was June 29, 201, was calculated by the original unit. ② The overdue interest on KRW 93,887,180, which was September 15, 201, was calculated by the Defendant’s calculation method and appropriated it. Accordingly, the Defendant’s calculation method was different.