(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.8.28.선고 2013가합30301 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of KRW 7,50,00,00 of the corresponding amount as stated in attached Table 2 Schedule 1 ① and each of the above amounts, as to the plaintiffs other than plaintiffs KimB, Cheong-C, nameD, chid, Lee F, and HongG, excluding plaintiffs Kim Jong-B, Kim Jong-C, Lee Jong-D, Lee Ho-D, Lee Ha-E, Lee F, Lee Hong-G from February 13, 2013 to June 18, 2013; and 6% per annum from November 30, 2013 to August 28, 2014; and 20% per annum from the next day to full payment date.

2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 6% interest per annum from February 5, 2013 to March 24, 2014, 20% interest per annum from the following day to the day of delivery of a copy of the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) New construction and lease of apartments;

1) On November 30, 1999, H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”) designated and purchased the use of a multi-family housing construction site from the Korea Land Corporation as a multi-family housing construction site, the use of which is not less than 60m but not more than 85m2,000,000 square meters from 16,543.60m3.60m (hereinafter referred to as “instant site”).

2) On July 18, 200, H obtained approval from the Kimhae market for a project plan to build a public rental house with 31 square-type 335 households on the ground of the instant site (hereinafter “the instant apartment”). From that time, H newly built the instant apartment from that time.

3) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “A”) acquired all rights and obligations relating to the instant apartment construction project from H on July 26, 2000.

4) A around December 23, 200, approved the invitation of occupants to the apartment of this case from the Kimhae market, and then announced the invitation of occupants around that time. On December 2000, A entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiffs to lease each of the relevant apartment units as stated in the attached Table 2's "Indication of real estate 2's attached Table B" column. On December 22, 2001, A underwent the inspection of use on the apartment of this case from the Kimhae market, and thereafter thereafter, A had the plaintiffs move into each of the above apartment units.

5) On December 30, 2009, A divided the company into a company and established the defendant, and succeeded to the rights and obligations with respect to the apartment of this case to the defendant.

(b) Sale in lots;

1) On February 1, 2012, after the expiration of the mandatory rental period of the instant apartment (five years), the Defendant filed an application for approval of conversion for sale in lots with the Mayor of Kimhae-si on February 1, 2012, and received notification from the Kimhae-si market on October 26, 2012, and publicly notified the Plaintiffs to file an application for conversion for sale in lots.

2) The Defendant set the pre-sale conversion price for each household of the instant apartment at KRW 117,770,000, and the specific calculation details are as follows.

pre-sale conversion price: 69,839,00 won and the average appraisal value of 165,701,000 won: 69,839,000 won (to be calculated by applying an interest rate of 2.80% per annum on the basis of the standard rental deposit for each lease period) for self-funds of KRW 83,164,00 (the housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants + interest of 3,769,900 + depreciation 17,094,220): 3,769,909 won

- Lease period: from December 24, 2001 to January 31, 2012

- Standard lease deposit by lease period: From December 24, 2001 to December 23, 2002, from December 2002, 16,582,00 won, from December 24, 2002 to December 23, 2003, the Plaintiffs concluded the sale conversion contract between 17,41,100 won, from December 24, 203 to December 23, 204, respectively, from 18,281,650 won, and from December 24, 2004 to 20.3.18, from December 24, 2004 to 20.18, from 20.20, from 19,195,730 won, and from December 24, 2005 to 20.21, 2015 to 3.21,204,2015,201.

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 11 through 14, Eul evidence 1 through 4, 11 and 12 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. In calculating the pre-sale conversion price of the apartment of this case, the Defendant calculated the unit price of the apartment of this case based on the standard construction cost even though it should be based on the actual input price. ② The purchase price was based on the sales contract, even though it should be based on the purchase price actually paid for the purchase of the housing site of this case. ③ The amount exceeding the reasonable pre-sale conversion price of each apartment of this case is invalid, since each of the sales contracts of this case is invalid, the Defendant is obliged to return each of the corresponding money stated in the “1-sale price” column of attached Table 2 corresponding to the money received in excess of the legitimate pre-sale conversion price to the Plaintiffs.

B. In determining the initial rental fee, the Defendant, based on 5.5% per annum, which is the interest rate of the loan from the National Housing Fund, at the time of the determination of the initial rental fee. Since then, the interest rate of the loan from the National Housing Fund has changed from January 20, 2004 to 4% per annum from October 20, 2006, the rent has been increased uniformly without reflecting it at all. The Defendant is not required to reflect the Plaintiffs the reduction of the interest rate of the National Housing Fund loan from the National Housing Fund loans as above, and the interest rate of the National Housing Fund has changed to 4% per annum after the change to 4% per annum.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek for payment of each of the above unlawful gains against the Defendant, as part of the above unlawful gains, in the column 1 of Attached Table 2’s claim amount, and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. Excessive calculated pre-sale conversion conversion price part

1) Relevant statutes applicable to the conversion of the apartment in this case into sale

The former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 11587, Dec. 18, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24443, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 11, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter the same shall apply) applies to the legal relationship concerning conversion of rental housing for sale in lots, not at the time of the initial invitation of occupants or the commencement of lease (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da97079, Apr. 21, 201).

A) As in the instant apartment, the sale price for the publicly constructed rental house, the mandatory rental period of which is five years, shall be calculated as the average of the construction cost and appraised value pursuant to Article 21(1) and (10) of the former Rental Housing Act, Article 23(7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, and Article 9(1) attached Table 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act. The above value shall not exceed the amount calculated by subtracting the depreciation cost during the rental period from the price (calculated price) of the relevant house calculated at the time of conversion into parcelling-out based on the construction cost and housing site cost of the rental housing (Paragraph 1(b)), and the construction cost shall be calculated by the formula of the “housing price at the time of initial recruitment of occupants” + the construction cost at the time of conversion into the sale + the calculation price shall be calculated by the formula of the “construction cost at the time of the announcement of the public announcement of the sale + interest on the housing site cost + interest on each item in the foregoing attached Table 1.

B) The purpose of the former Rental Housing Act, including the former Rental Housing Act, is to promote the construction of rental housing and ensure the stability of national housing life. In particular, when imposing various restrictions on rental business operators with various support, the right to preferential sale conversion of rental housing is recognized after the lapse of the mandatory rental period and the rental business operator’s sale of rental housing is prevented from arbitrarily setting the pre-sale conversion price and the reasonable pre-sale conversion price is ensured. Nevertheless, if a rental business operator interpreted that the pre-sale conversion price is not binding on the pre-sale conversion price, the rental business operator’s arbitrary setting of pre-sale conversion price exceeding the pre-sale conversion price standard after the lapse of the mandatory rental period and then notified the lessee of the fact that the pre-sale conversion price should be allowed to acquire the pre-sale price exceeding the pre-sale conversion price standard and its holding would seriously undermine the legislative intent of the former Rental Housing Act, and thus, the former Rental Business Act’s regulations on pre-sale conversion price should be deemed to be invalid and its legislative purpose should be prevented and its punishment should be imposed within the scope of the pre-sale pre-sale pre-sale standard.

3) The meaning of the construction cost that forms the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price

A) From among the factors that form the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price under attached Table 1(2)(a) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act, the construction cost is determined by the housing price at the time of the first tenant recruitment + self-fund interest - depreciation cost, and the calculated price is determined by the formula of the "construction cost at the time of the conversion into parcelling-out + the housing site cost + interest rate at the time of the announcement of invitation of occupants. In addition, according to the above attached Table 1, the housing price at the time of the first tenant recruitment, which is the element for the calculation of the construction cost, shall be calculated by the tenant recruitment approval authority based on the construction cost and housing site cost [Article 2(2)(a)(i)]. Under the above provisions, the upper price of the construction cost is the price separately publicly notified by the Minister of Construction and Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the "standard housing construction cost") [Article 2(2)(a)(i)]. It is clearly distinguishable from the construction cost that is the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price.

B) On the grounds delineated below, the Defendant asserts that the construction cost, which serves as the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price, cannot be deemed as the actual construction cost. In other words, as the construction cost cannot be seen as having been actually input as before the completion of the instant apartment at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants, it is impossible to clearly define the concept of “actual construction cost,” and it is difficult to clearly define the concept of “actual construction cost at the time of initial recruitment of occupants” as the actual construction cost, and in the case of directly constructing a building with the Defendant, the concept of actual construction cost cannot be deemed as the construction cost due to the conclusion of the collective construction contract as a result of the conclusion of the collective construction contract.

C) However, in light of the following, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) In the event that a tenant recruitment is conducted without completion of a rental house, the construction cost is not determined at the time of the first tenant recruitment. Thus, even if a person entitled to approve the invitation of occupants who calculated the housing price at the time of the first tenant recruitment is bound to calculate the housing price by estimating the construction cost to be spent until the completion of the construction, this is merely an inevitable consequence because the construction cost actually invested cannot be determined due to the circumstances in which the tenant recruitment is made before completion of a rental house, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the estimated construction cost applied at the time of the public announcement of recruitment should be used.

(2) In addition, the term "actual construction cost" refers to all expenses directly and indirectly incurred in constructing a building in question, such as material cost, labor cost, and construction cost paid in return for a contract with another person, and its conceptual definition is unclear. Even if it is difficult to accurately understand the expenses incurred in constructing a building, it is only a practical difficulty that occurs in the course of calculating the cost of time and effort, etc. invested in the completion of a certain work, and thus it is not impossible to calculate the actual construction cost, and this is also the same even if construction is carried out directly and indirectly without going through a contract for construction work.

(3) In addition, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da51202 (main lawsuit) and 2012Da51219 (Counterclaim) Decided February 14, 2013 cited by the Defendant are related to the calculation of standard rental deposit and standard rent, which are not pre-sale conversion conversion price. Since lease contract and pre-sale contract are separate legal relations, its content and formation time clearly vary, it cannot be deemed that the same construction cost is applied in calculating standard rental deposit and standard rent and unit sale conversion price.

4) Calculation of a legitimate pre-sale conversion price

(a) Construction costs;

(1) the price of the first recruitment of occupants;

(A) According to Article 82-3(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21975, Jan. 1, 2010), the term “acquisition price which serves as the tax base for acquisition tax” means all expenses (excluding value-added tax) incurred directly or indirectly to acquire the relevant object before the acquisition of the object of taxation, and the tax base for new construction of the building shall be the total amount of construction cost, namely, construction cost, and incidental expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17373, Feb. 11, 2010; 206(1)4 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act; 106(4) of the same Act; 106(1)4 of the same Act; and Article 106(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, with respect to a house with an exclusive use area of less than 85 square meters per household, and with respect to the construction of the relevant apartment and the construction of the apartment.

The defendant asserts that the tax base amount of acquisition tax is excluded from general management expenses, publicity expenses, water supply expenses, gas expenses, electricity expenses, equity capital expenses, profits, value added tax, and other additional expenses, so the above tax base amount cannot be considered as actual construction expenses.

However, Article 18 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides that "A shall not have existed after December 2, 2001, which was at the time of reporting the acquisition tax base of the apartment of this case by listing the above various expenses." Since the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which was applied at the time of reporting the tax base of the apartment of this case, only includes all direct and indirect expenses other than the value-added tax, as seen earlier, in all the tax base, and in the case of the apartment of this case, A shall be exempted from value-added tax on its supply and construction services, and as in the case of the apartment of this case, A shall report the acquisition tax of the apartment of this case to the Kimhae City Mayor on December 22, 2001, which was after completion of the apartment of this case and use inspection, and even if there was no construction cost or its amount was significant after the time of reporting the acquisition tax base, as long as there is no evidence to acknowledge that A filed only the remainder of the acquisition tax base of the apartment of this case, including general management expenses or publicity expenses.

(b) The site cost

Under attached Table 1(2)(a) of attached Table 1(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act, the criteria for calculating the housing site cost, which is one of the constituent elements of the pre-sale conversion, shall be developed by the State, local governments, Korea Land Corporation, Korea National Housing Corporation, and other public institutions, such as

In the case of a housing site to be supplied (hereinafter referred to as "public housing site"), the term "supply price" means the price of the housing site actually supplied by a rental business operator from a housing site supplier to the extent that it does not violate the standards prescribed by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, Enforcement Rule of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, Enforcement Rule of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act, and guidelines for processing business of housing site development (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da55309, Jul. 28, 201).

갑 제4, 9호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, A은 2000. 10. 27. 김해시장에게 이 사건 대지에 대한 취득세 과세표준으로 4,308,924,470원을 신고한 사실, 이 사건 대지의 면적은 16,543.60㎡이고, 그 중 이 사건 아파트의 대지 면적은 16,257.55㎡인 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이 사건 아파트의 택지비는 4,234,420,260원 [= 4,308,924,470 × (16,257.55 | 16,543.60)]이고, 세대별 택지비는 12,640,060원(= 4,234,420,260 : 335세대)이다. 이에 대하여 피고는, 이 사건 대지에 관한 매매계약상 매매대금이 5,284,940,000원이므로, 위 5,284,940,000원이 실제 택지비라고 주장한다. 살피건대, 을 제12호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 의하면, 이 사건 대지에 관한 매매계약상 매매대금이 5,284,940,000원인 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 피고가 A이 실제 지급한 매매대금에 관한 직접적인 자료를 제출하지 아니한 이상, 택지비 선납으로 인한 기간이자가 할인되는 경우도 드물지 않은바, 위 인정사실만으로 위 과세표준액이 아닌 매매계약상 매매대금을 실제 지급한 매매대금이라고 보기는 어려우므로, 피고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

(C) The calculation of the housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants at the time of the instant apartment house’s first recruitment of occupants by household is 68,96,223 won in total of 56,356,163 won in building cost per household and 12,640,060 won in housing cost per household. (2) A person who owns his own funds.

In full view of the contents and the purport of the evidence Nos. 7-3 of the evidence Nos. 7-3, the lease deposit prior to the mutual conversion of each item, which serves as the basis for calculating self-interest, shall be as listed in the following table, and the interest rate of 2.8%, which serves as the basis for calculating self-interest, is as the defendant.

Therefore, the interest rate for each household of the apartment of this case is KRW 131,989 as indicated below.

A person shall be appointed.

Depreciation costs are calculated in accordance with attached Table 1(2)(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Rental Housing Act, Article 26(1)1, Article 26(2)1, and Article 28(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24357, Feb. 15, 2013); attached Table 5 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 325, Feb. 23, 2013); Article 15(3)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 325, Feb. 23, 201; 56,163 won per household of the apartment house of this case: From February 24, 2011 to January 31, 2012; the Plaintiffs are depreciation costs of KRW 14,239,581,514,519,294.

(4) Calculation of construction costs

Therefore, the construction cost of the apartment of this case by household is 54,88,701 won (=68,996,223 of the housing price at the time of the initial recruitment of occupants + self-interest 131,989 - Depreciation cost of 14,239,511).

B) According to the statement of the arithmetic average of the construction cost and the appraisal value of the apartment house in this case, the appraisal value of the apartment house in this case is 110,294,850 won [=(54,88,701 + 165,701 + 165,000 : 2] according to the statement in subparagraph 7-3, the maximum appraisal value of the apartment house in this case is 165,701,00 won per household.)

(1) The calculated price is 56,356,163 won per household of the apartment of this case; 12,640,060 won per household at the time of the announcement of tenant recruitment; 2.8% per annum; and 39/365 of the rental period (the calculation of the interest rate and the rental period shall be based on the same method as the interest rate for the apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of 56,356,163 + construction cost of 12,640,060 + interest of housing site cost of 3,57,033 +60 + 12,647,060 + 640% per year; and 10.39/365 of the rental period of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s case’s

(2) As seen earlier, the upper limit on the pre-sale conversion price is 14,239,51 won for each apartment unit of the instant apartment unit. Therefore, the upper limit on the pre-sale conversion price is 58,33,745 won (=72,573,256 - 14,239,511) calculated by deducting the said depreciation costs from the calculation price for each household of the instant apartment unit of the instant apartment unit.

D) Since 110,294,850 won, which is the arithmetic mean of the construction cost of the apartment building of this case and the appraised value, exceeds the upper limit of 58,33,745 won of the pre-sale conversion price, the justifiable pre-sale conversion price of the apartment of this case is the upper limit of 58,33,745 won.

5) Defendant’s duty to return unjust enrichment

Therefore, the sales price of each of the instant sales contracts exceeds the legitimate pre-sale conversion price calculated pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the former Rental Housing Act. Since each of the instant sales contracts is invalid, the Defendant is obligated to return 59,436,255 won each of the differences between 117.70,000 won for each of the sales contracts received from the Plaintiffs and 58,33,745 won for each of the legitimate pre-sale conversion price for each of the instant sales contracts.

6) Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the housing price at the time of recruitment of occupants, which is the basis for pre-sale conversion, is not calculated A, but calculated based on the building cost and housing site cost, and that the administrative agency, which is the approval authority for recruitment of occupants, does not mean the simple aggregate of building cost and housing site cost, and accordingly, if the administrative agency’s disposition of approval for recruitment of occupants and approval for conversion for sale in lots becomes final and conclusive,

According to the attached Table 1 of Article 9(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act, the right to approve the invitation of occupants shall calculate the housing price at the time of the first recruitment of occupants based on the construction cost and housing site cost. However, this does not constitute only one element in determining the amount of the sale price in the sale contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and since the right to approve the invitation of occupants does not have the right to determine the sale price, each of the sale contracts in this case shall not be deemed to have been concluded according to the sale price determined by Kim Sea, which is the right to approve the invitation of occupants.

B) In addition, the Defendant, prior to the Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da97079 Decided April 21, 201, was rendered, it was practically impossible for the Plaintiffs to predict that the Plaintiffs would file a claim for return of unjust enrichment with the Defendant in relation to the calculation of the pre-sale conversion price. ② In the event that the instant claim is accepted by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs paid the low-price deposit and reside in the leased apartment for five years, as well as the relevant apartment as the purchase of the apartment at a much higher price than the market price, thereby making excessive profits for the Plaintiffs. On the other hand, the issue in the instant case is (3) a number of lawsuits filed against the Defendant or its affiliated companies, and it is clear that the Defendant would have suffered serious managerial difficulties due to the financial burden entirely unexpected to the Defendant, and since the year between small and medium construction companies and subcontractors of small and medium-sized rental housing and subcontracted companies, the bankruptcy and the rapid decline in the construction market is anticipated, the instant claim for return of unjust enrichment cannot be allowed against the good faith principle.

If a person who violates the mandatory law denies his/her assertion on the invalidity of an agreement in violation of the mandatory law on the ground that it is an exercise of the right that violates the principle of good faith, this would result in realizing the outcome of exclusion by the mandatory law, and completely excluding the legislative intent, and barring any special circumstances, such assertion cannot be deemed as contrary to the principle of good faith. Meanwhile, in order to deny the exercise of the right on the ground that it is in violation of the principle of good faith, the other party’s belief should be provided to the other party or objectively, and thus, the other party’s belief should be deemed legitimate. The exercise of the right against the other party’s faith should reach the degree that it is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17482, Mar. 10, 201).

As seen earlier, the provisions of the Rental Housing Act, including the Rental Housing Act, on the criteria for calculating the pre-sale conversion price, are deemed to be invalid within the extent exceeding the pre-sale conversion price that goes against the standard set forth in the said provisions. Thus, if the aforementioned invalidation claim is rejected on the ground that it is an exercise of rights contrary to the good faith principle, it would be a result of hindering the legislative intent set forth under the compulsory provisions. ② Even if it can be rejected by applying the good faith principle, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiffs were not able to exercise the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the above sales contract was partially null and void, and even if such trust exists, it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize that the Plaintiffs were not able to exercise the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the above sales contract was partially null and void. In light of the above, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The portion of the rent that is not reflected in the reduction of interest rate on the loan from the National Housing Fund

According to Gap evidence No. 15, it can be acknowledged that the interest rate of the National Housing Fund loan was 5.5% per annum at the time of the first tenant recruitment for the apartment of this case, the interest rate of the National Housing Fund loan was 4.5% per annum from January 20, 2004, and the interest rate of the National Housing Fund loan was 4.5% per annum from October 20, 2006.

However, in calculating the initial standard rent, the relevant laws and regulations stipulate that the interest on the loan from the National Housing Fund, 20% of the interest on the loan from the National Housing Fund, depreciation costs, repair and maintenance costs, and fire insurance premiums shall be added, and subsequent rents shall not be increased in excess of 1/20 per annum on the basis of the initial standard rent, as seen earlier. In light of the fact that the purpose of the Rental Housing Act is to stabilize people's residential life and promote rental housing construction business as well as to stabilize rental housing construction business, the aforementioned provisions of the relevant laws and regulations are strictly regulated within a certain scope to ensure the stability of people's residential life, but subsequent rents shall be determined to have the purpose of granting autonomy to rental housing business operators in order to promote rental housing construction business. Therefore, even if the interest rate of the National Housing Fund that constitutes the initial rent has changed, the Defendant, a rental business entity, is not necessarily obligated to determine rents by reflecting it

Therefore, when the interest rate of the National Housing Fund loans is reduced, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit, premised on the defendant's obligation to reduce the rent.

Therefore, as the Defendant seeks, as part of KRW 59,436,255 to the Plaintiffs, for each of the above 59,436,255, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 7,500,00 among the pertinent respective money and each of the above 7,50,00 of the damages for delay as stated in the separate sheet 1 ① as to the Plaintiffs, as to the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff KimB, rightC, nameD, Yang E, Lee F, and HongG, the following day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint 2013da303, 301, the following day of February 13, 2013, the Plaintiff KimB, rightC, nameD, Yang E, Lee F, and HongG, the amount of KRW 201,3272 from June 18, 2013 to 208, each of the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint 201,213.

(Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant is liable to pay damages for delay after February 5, 2013. However, the obligation to return unjust enrichment is not specified and, barring any special agreement, the obligation to return unjust enrichment is liable for delay from the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint or a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim containing the intent of the Plaintiffs’ request for performance. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the plaintiffs' claims is partly accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed without merit. However, the defendant's argument on some of the issues of this case cannot be said to be without merit (in light of this, the revised proposal of the Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act concerning the criteria for calculating pre-sale conversion price, which is the basis for calculating pre-sale conversion price, refers to the construction cost publicly announced at the time of initial recruitment of occupants). At present, many of the same cases are waiting for the judgment on the same issue in higher court, and if provisional execution is executed due to a very large amount of quotation, it is reasonable to conclude that the provisional execution declaration does not have any effect on the defendant's operation of the company. Therefore, it