1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant Union is a housing association established for the purpose of building a housing construction project to build apartment units of a regional housing association (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”) in the Dong-si C Group (hereinafter referred to as “the instant project”). On February 14, 2015, upon filing an application for authorization to establish a housing association with the housing association on April 28, 2015.

B. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement to enter into an association (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the content that the Plaintiff would purchase Category D (74 square meters of exclusive use area) among apartment buildings of a regional housing association to be newly constructed with the Defendant association (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant Cooperative a total of KRW 38 million under the instant contract. D.

On September 16, 2018, the Defendant Union held the fourth special meeting, and the case of approval of the resolution for the dissolution of an association was resolved at the above special meeting, and on October 17, 2018, the Defendant Union reported the dissolution of an association and received a decision to authorize dissolution from macroscopies.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The instant contract is a delegating person for the implementation of the project of the regional housing association. The Defendant’s association decided to liquidate the project of the regional housing association through an extraordinary general meeting to change the contents of the project as a rental housing project and obtained approval for modification of the project plan as to the establishment of rental housing accordingly constitutes an impossible or significant change in the implementation of the instant contract, and thus, the Plaintiff

B. If the Defendant Partnership was dissolved, the establishment authorization was revoked, and the Plaintiff, a partner, can withdraw from the partnership at will. Thus, the instant contract was invalidated by the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to withdraw, and accordingly, the Defendant Union should return the Plaintiff’s contribution to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(c) the defendant.