2016 205636 Return of contributions

1. A;

2. B

3. C

4. D;

5. E.

F Area Housing Association

December 8, 2017

January 12, 2018

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff A 67,70,000 won, 72,834,000 won, 68,320,000 won to the Plaintiff C, 72,834,000 won to the Plaintiff D, 60,820,000 won to the Plaintiff E, and 15% per annum from September 6, 2016 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2015, the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the Defendant to join the association members (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with each of the following contents that the Plaintiffs become a member of the Defendant and participated in the construction of an apartment, and the purchase of an apartment. At that time, the Plaintiffs paid contributions and business promotion expenses (hereinafter “the instant contributions, etc.”) to the Defendant.

F Area housing association subscription contract [Indication of Subject Matters] (1) Location of project site: approximately 19,817m

F. 1) Location of the housing association [1] : 0.M. 2.M. 1,817 (3): approximately 18,70-m. 18,706m. (4): Total floor area: approximately 96,806m. 2: 369.82% of the total floor area; 369.82% of the supply volume: 21.81, 291-type 291, 3147, 30-type 147, 304-type 60-type 70-type 70-type 80-type 2, 60-type 30-type 147, 34.02-type 106-type : 60-type 107, 605-type 105-type 2, 305-type 205-type 37.

B. Around December 22, 2015, the Defendant’s acquisition rate of the project site (the acquisition rate of the right to use land) is 67.05% of the area of the consent to use of the entire site, which is 20,538.17 square meters and 13,771.84 square meters, and the acquisition rate of the project site around December 15, 2016 was 69.45%.

C. Around February 2017, the Defendant sent a notice on the following matters to the Defendant’s members regarding the revision of the business plan:

On July 26, 2016, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance agreed to use the land belonging to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance among the state-owned and public land, but it was finally agreed that the land owned by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport may be purchased by a person with 100% of the land for which 82% of the approved conditions can not be satisfied even after purchasing 10% of the land for which 80% of the approved conditions could not be met, and the progress of the project was delayed in order to prepare the plan.

D. On or around March 31, 2017, the Defendant obtained authorization for the establishment of a regional housing association with a business plan (19,918 square meters, - 17,218 square meters, - 442 households, project cost 260 billion won - 20 billion won) reduced compared to a business plan on or around December 2015 (2019,918 square meters, - 17,218 square meters, and 590 households, respectively).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 5, 8, Eul's 1 to 8 (including each number, if any) and each fact inquiry to the head of Daegu Metropolitan City

2. Summary of the parties such as the request;

(a)Plaintiffs;

(1) Although the defendant failed to secure more than 80% of the project site and was obligated to notify the plaintiffs that state and public land is included in the project site, the contract of this case was concluded without notifying the fact that state and public land is included in the project site, and further, it was publicly announced that the plaintiffs secured more than 80% of the project site. Ultimately, the plaintiffs entered into the contract of this case in accordance with the above defendant's deception and paid the charges of this case to the defendant. Such acts of the defendant constitute deception by commission and omission, the contract of this case should be revoked, and the defendant must pay the charges of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff due to such act and omission.

(2) On March 31, 2017, the instant contract was approved for the establishment of a housing association in a more reduced state than the initial project plan. According to this, it is impossible to sell the same apartment units allocated to the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the instant contract should be rescinded on the ground that it is impossible to execute the contract, and the Defendant should pay the instant contribution, etc. and damages for delay to the Plaintiff by restitution.

B. Defendant

(1) At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiffs did not deceive the Plaintiffs regarding the rate of securing the project site. Even if such publicity was conducted, this does not mean that the Defendant deceivings the business site as it is an act of the agent, and whether the project site is secured and the state-owned land in the project site is included in the project site, and there is no causal link between deception and the conclusion of the contract, and thus there was no causation between deception and the conclusion of the contract. The Defendant secured a lot of project sites at the time of the instant contract, and the Defendant secured a lot of the project site at the time of the instant contract, which was 76.8% at the rate of securing the private land in the project site. If the additional 80% is secured, the state-owned and public land can be secured through consultation, so it is actually 80%, and it does not have an important duty to notify whether the state-owned and public land is included, and thereafter, the securing rate of private land among the project site reaches 79.65% on December 2016.

(2) Since the Defendant had already concluded the instant contract with the knowledge that the project promoted by the Defendant may change later, and thus, the number of houses allocated to the Plaintiffs may be changed, it does not constitute a performance impossibility as long as the Defendant can provide a similar apartment even if the same type of houses is changed.

3. Determination

A. Whether the contract of this case was revoked

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the contract of this case was concluded by the Defendant’s deception, barring any other circumstance, inasmuch as the contract of this case was concluded by the Defendant, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiffs the charges of this case and the damages for delay on the basis of restitution to its original state.

(1) On May 2015, Plaintiff A told that the Defendant’s employees engaged in the sale of buildings from the Defendant’s employees in the sale of buildings was 90% or more in fact, and H and Plaintiff D knew that at least 80% of the site was secured at the time of the sale of buildings from the Defendant’s employees in the sale of buildings from the Defendant’s employees in the sale of buildings on or around June 2016, and the Defendant’s general meeting held on or around October 18, 2016 that the Defendant’s employees in the sale of buildings were 80% or more at the Defendant’s meeting held on or around October 18, 2016, the Plaintiffs appears to have received the notification to the effect that at the time of entering into the instant contract, the acquisition rate of the land from the association was 80% or more from the employees in the exercise of the sale of buildings in lots, etc. who have the power of authority to execute the sale of buildings from among the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s employees in the

(2) According to the written consent for land use, among the written consent for land use submitted by the Defendant to the Jung-gu Metropolitan City, the Defendant prepared a written consent for land use with respect to a project site of at least 3,000 square meters after the Police Officer around May 2015 and then recognized that the Defendant secured the project site around the time. In addition, compared to the fact that around December 2015, the area of the consent for land use was at least 13,71.84 square meters out of the total land site around 20,538.17 square meters, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s land acquisition rate of the Plaintiff around May 18, 2015, which entered into the instant contract, was at least 50 percent, which was less than 80 percent.1)

(3) The ratio of securing the project site is a requirement for the Defendant’s establishment authorization and the exercise of the right to request sale to secure the final site, and it is necessary to secure a certain degree of project site in the future, and it is possible to grasp what extent the period of the project site is, etc., so that the Defendant’s project is very important material for the Defendant’s project that can anticipates the increase in the contributions to be borne by the Plaintiffs and the change in the project, and accordingly, the Housing Act amended by Act No. 14344, Dec. 2, 2016 and the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act amended accordingly, reported the ratio of securing the project site to

(4) The Defendant may purchase the state-owned and public land at the time of securing the site at least 80% of the private land based on consultation with the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, so it is not an important matter to determine whether the land is included in the project site. However, on February 2, 2017, the Defendant did not reveal the fact that around February 2, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a situation where it is impossible for the Defendant to carry out the project even if it is not possible to secure the private land in full due to the lack of consultation with the government-owned and public land, reduced the project site, and notified the Defendant to purchase the state-owned and public land again to increase the project site.

(5) The Defendant concluded the instant contract and prepared a letter confirming that it would not raise any objection to the amendment of the project plan that will be future to the Plaintiffs. If the rights of the Plaintiffs are restricted by receiving such letter, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant has a duty to fully explain the rate of securing the project site that may cause the Plaintiffs to modify the project plan and whether the project site includes state-owned or public-owned land in the project site.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

Around December 2015, the defendant asserts that the ratio of securing the private land out of the project site is equivalent to 76.8%, and thus, it is not deceiving because it has secured the site close to 80%. However, if a partner who has not been notified of whether the state and public land is included in the project site is not a private land, it is general to think that he has explained about the ratio of securing the project site based on the total site rather than the private land. Accordingly, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

As above, since the plaintiffs received restitution based on the cancellation of the contract of this case, the cancellation of the contract of this case due to the impossibility of the execution of the contract of this case is no longer examined.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted in its entirety with due cause, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jung-man

Judge Lee Young-young

Judges Jinsu-syun

1) Among May 2015, there is no other evidence as to the Defendant’s site acquisition ratio, and it is determined on the basis of the fact-finding decision with respect to the head of Daegu Metropolitan City, Daegu, as of March 10, 2017.