1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part as modified in the following two paragraphs, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From the judgment of the court of first instance, the 7th to 8th 10th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.

(3) The defendant asserts that since the project cost deduction amount of KRW 37,19,54,784 or KRW 13,049,84 or KRW 13,046,133 of the project cost required for the settlement of cash against the plaintiffs ( October 22, 201) should be borne by the members including the plaintiffs, the above project cost must be deducted from the settlement amount. It is reasonable to view that the members who become the objects of cash settlement as meeting the requirements prescribed in Article 47 of the former Urban Improvement Act and the articles of association, such as not applying for parcelling-out or withdrawing the project cost, lose their status as members. The time when the members lose their status as members in this case comes to a cash settlement relationship in the reconstruction project, and the obligation to pay the settlement amount of land and other rights arising from cash settlement, etc. should be deemed as the time when the settlement amount is not applied for parcelling-out or the members who withdrawn the project cost should lose their status as members on the date following the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out (see Supreme Court Decision 2076Da1364, supra.