1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a cooperative that completed the establishment registration on July 21, 2005 for the purpose of the Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant redevelopment Project”) with the land, etc. located within the said project implementation district, Yongsan-gu Seoul and 315 lots (hereinafter “instant redevelopment Project”). The Plaintiffs are the Defendant’s members.

B. On October 25, 2011, the Defendant was dissolved in accordance with the resolution of the representative general meeting of councillors, and H was appointed as a liquidator and implemented liquidation procedures.

During that period, the Defendant distributed 3.5 billion won among the profits accrued from the instant redevelopment project, and 2.5 billion won to the members including the Plaintiffs around January 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant distributed 6 billion won in total to partners on two occasions, on the basis of the ex post sale price, not the value of the right to land, etc. invested by the first partners.

However, since partners have the shares of the amount equivalent to the amount of rights, such as the land they invested in the defendant's property, the defendant is obligated to distribute the above profits according to the amount of rights, which is the most fundamental standard.

Therefore, the plaintiffs seek to pay to the defendant the amount equivalent to the difference between the dividends and rights that the plaintiffs received from the actual defendant as shown in the table below and the amount of dividends fixed as property based on the amount of rights.

A B CD E

3. Key issues and the instant determination are whether the Defendant is obligated to distribute the profits of the instant redevelopment project to its members according to the ratio of the “rights value” claimed by the Plaintiffs during the process of liquidation.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the reason alleged by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has the above obligation, and otherwise, evidence to acknowledge it.