Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on May 2, 2012

June 21, 2013

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap14750 decided November 8, 2012

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 1 17,862,410 won, 17,585,653 won, 17,724,032 won, and 20% interest per annum from May 16, 2012 to the day of full payment.

The first instance judgment is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The grounds for this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the following are added to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance.

2. The addition;

(a)in addition between 4, 10 and 11;

(C) The Plaintiffs, a member of the Defendant’s association, are obligated to bear project costs of the instant rearrangement project pursuant to Article 10(1)6 of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation. Since the Plaintiffs received settlement money not deducted from the Defendant, the Plaintiffs are obligated to return to the Defendant the amount equivalent to the ratio of the settlement money that the Plaintiffs received by the Plaintiffs (Plaintiff 1:25,59,438, Plaintiff 2:20,756,195, Plaintiff 3:28,710,026) out of the project costs incurred by the date of consultation and sale until the date of consultation and sale, the amount equivalent to the ratio of the settlement money that the Plaintiffs received. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim for the return of unjust enrichment of the project costs against the Plaintiffs is offset against the amount equal to

(b)in addition to Chapters 8, 7 and 8.

(5) Whether the project cost set-off is based on the claim for return of unjust enrichment

If Gap evidence Nos. 8, 20, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including additional numbers) added the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiffs filed an application for parcelling-out with the defendant during the period from December 29, 2009 to January 29, 2010, but the defendant revoked the application for parcelling-out after obtaining authorization of the management and disposal plan, and applied for cash settlement. The plaintiffs did not receive a notice from the defendant that the defendant should bear the project expenses incurred by the date of consultation and sale, while the plaintiffs sold the building owned by the defendant and received the liquidation money from January 18, 201 to March 4, 2011.

Based on the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs lose their membership status and are exempted from the obligations of members such as project costs and obligation to pay liquidation money (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da91364, Jul. 28, 2011). ② Article 10(1)6 of the defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that members are obliged to pay project costs, etc., but Article 10(1)6 of the defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that a person subject to cash settlement bears the obligation to pay project costs, but the articles of incorporation cannot be found in the defendant’s articles of incorporation; ③ there is no evidence to prove that there is any project costs and details of allocation to be borne by the persons subject to cash settlement established by the defendant; ④ Article 24(3)3 of the Urban Improvement Act provides that the details of allocation by each member of the general meeting shall be determined by the resolution of the general meeting. In light of the fact that the defendant did not submit any documents to acknowledge that the person subject to cash settlement had to pay the total amount of project costs and project costs by the general meeting.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Judge)