Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court below, the additional dues due to the delay and damages for delay.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 47 subparagraph 2 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act”), as to the grounds of appeal on whether the plaintiffs are eligible for cash settlement, a project implementer shall liquidate in cash the land, buildings or other rights to the owners of the land, etc. who have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out within 150 days from the date he/she becomes eligible for the application for parcelling-out in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The term “person who has withdrawn the application for parcelling-out” referred to in this context means only the persons who have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out before the expiration of

However, where the articles of incorporation or management and disposal plan of a project implementer requires members to conclude a contract for parcelling-out within a certain period after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, and the purpose of settling the contract in cash is to liquidate its rights for the land owners, etc. who were members of the project implementer, it is additionally given an opportunity to leave the project by refusing to conclude the contract for parcelling-out within the relevant period, so the owner of the land, etc. who has filed the application for parcelling-out refuses the contract for parcelling-out within the execution period after the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out or the project implementer refuses the contract for parcelling-out by clearly indicating that there is no intention to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da91364 Decided July 28, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2011Du17936 Decided December 22, 201, etc.). The reasoning of the lower judgment is and the aforementioned legal doctrine.