1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a regional housing association established for the purpose of constructing and supplying an apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at the Dongwon in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and paid the Defendant totaling KRW 134,500,000 in accordance with the instant agreement.

C. The main contents of the instant contract are as shown in the attached Table 1 joining agreement, and the contents of the Defendant Association’s bylaws are as listed in the attached Table 2.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the assertion on rescission of contract

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) in the instant contract, the Plaintiff did not have any money to be borne by the Plaintiff from the Defendant to the time of occupancy in addition to paying the down payment and the administrative service charges; (b) the purchase of the land was 95% higher; (c) the construction company was determined D; and (d) the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the explanation that it is possible to move into by 2020.

However, after the conclusion of the contract, the Defendant demanded the union members to bear personal contributions on the ground that collective loans are impossible due to the failure to secure land, failure to designate a contractor, and the problem of donation of a school site, unlike the first advertisement. The Defendant’s unfair execution of project costs, embezzlement, and breach of trust by those related to partnership including the former president (hereinafter “association-related persons”) and so it is impossible to complete occupancy by up to 2020 years since the date of conclusion of the contract of this case was set for four years from the date of conclusion of the contract of this case.

Therefore, the instant contract is currently impossible to implement due to significant changes in circumstances, and this is a reason that is not attributable to the Plaintiff. Therefore, if the binding force of the contract is recognized, the Plaintiff may result in a significant violation of the good faith principle.