1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff joined the Defendant, a regional housing association established for the purpose of constructing an apartment of the size of 29 stories above the ground level above the 29 stories above the ground in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, as the members of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff would purchase apartment units D to be constructed in the future

(hereinafter “instant subscription contract”). On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 20,650,000, business promotion expenses of the partnership, and KRW 4,000,00,000, pursuant to the instant subscription contract. From February 27, 2017 to May 29, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 180,000 per month in total as part payment interest, and paid KRW 27,536,00 in total.

At the time of the instant subscription agreement, the Defendant explained that the new apartment construction corporation will start between August 2015 and October 2015, and will be completed between November 2016 and February 2017.

The defendant explained that "no additional sale price is available. The parking area should be secured by 0.8 units per household" and promised to do so.

However, the defendant did not start new apartment construction work up until now and violated the promise to the plaintiff.

In addition, since the Defendant did not receive a loan from the intermediate payment in the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant received interest from the Plaintiff even if he did not receive interest from the intermediate payment, thereby making unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the Plaintiff rescinds the subscription contract of this case for the reason of the Defendant’s breach of duty (or termination) and seeks the return of the money paid by the Plaintiff to its original state.

2. Considering the building scale, unit area by household, and characteristics of the housing construction project that can change the cooperative members’ contributions following the change of the determination project plan, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant promised the Plaintiff as a conclusive promise on the starting date, completion date, existence of the additional sale price, parking area, etc. of the Plaintiff solely based on the written evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The defendant recognized that the amount equivalent to the interest on the intermediate payment was unjust.