1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,00,000 and its annual amount from March 21, 2008 to May 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The facts of recognition are that the defendant is a reconstruction association which obtained the authorization of establishment of the housing association from the head of Busan Metropolitan City, which is the competent authority on February 28, 2001, and the plaintiff is a sectional owner under subparagraph 15 (hereinafter referred to as "the commercial building in this case") of the above commercial building, which is constructed around approximately 39,050 in Busan, Dong-gu C, and the building owners of B apartment and its commercial building, which are built above approximately 39,050 in order to create a pleasant residential environment and to contribute to the promotion of residents' welfare in the complex, and to remove the building and build a new apartment on the site.

As of July 12, 2002, the value of the commercial building of this case as of July 12, 2002 is KRW 113 million, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 59 million from the Defendant on or around July 2003 as moving expenses.

The defendant set the period for application for parcelling-out apartment and commercial building from November 13, 2003 to the 16th of the same month, and the plaintiff did not apply for parcelling-out.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages from November 17, 2003, which is the date following the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da16127 Decided September 26, 2013) as the date on which the Defendant is obligated to pay the liquidation money of KRW 113 million to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s settlement money to the Plaintiff.

On January 23, 2014, the Defendant asserted that, inasmuch as there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff cannot seek settlement money against the Defendant under the circumstances where some commercial buildings have not been disposed of, since there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and six members of the commercial buildings, to equally distribute the amount after deducting the obligation, such as management expenses, after disposing of the entire rebuilding commercial buildings, and then deducting the obligation, etc., according to the shares of the union members, the Plaintiff and six other members of the commercial buildings were aware of the agreement.