1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,020,530 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 9, 2013 to February 13, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. In relation to the parties (1) The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and rearrangement project association established to implement a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”) with respect to three and 24 households on a land A with a size of 913.8 square meters and D large 692.7 square meters, Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”), and obtained project implementation authorization pursuant to Article 28(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008) on July 11, 2006.

(2) At the time when the Plaintiff received the above project implementation authorization, the Defendant owned the building Nos. 1, 104, 206, 202, 3, and 101 of the said tenement house. On November 1, 2007, the Defendant donated the building No. 202 to Nonparty E, who is the Defendant’s children, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future.

(3) On the other hand, on March 10, 208, E completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of trust with respect to the building No. 202, Dong 202 (hereinafter “instant housing”) in the name of the Plaintiff, and filed an application for parcelling-out with respect to the apartment to be newly constructed for reconstruction on February 8, 2010.

B. (1) On January 18, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, under which the Defendant was actually operating a company for the construction of a master body (hereinafter “master body construction”) to select a company for the construction of a master body (hereinafter “master body construction”) in the process of selecting a contractor for the reconstruction project of this case as an open bid. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, setting the members’ contributions as KRW 65 million per household and designating them as a master body construction.

(2) After five to six months from the date of the conclusion of the above agreement, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to increase the amount of the Plaintiff’s contribution to KRW 70 million on the grounds of price increase. The Plaintiff accepted the request and sought to authorize the management and disposal to avoid the redevelopment profit refund system implemented from September 25, 2006, but requested to increase the amount of the Plaintiff’s contribution to KRW 75 million without carrying out construction.

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s general meeting on May 9, 2007.