1.The following amount of money out of the portion of the Saemaeul Fund in the judgment of the court of first instance with respect to Defendant Mapo-dong shall be exceeded:

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the first instance court’s judgment, except in cases where part of the judgment of the first instance is rewritten or added as stated in the following 2, thereby citing it by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the case of a new or additional decision of the first instance, the following shall be added to the seventh and seventyth decision of the first instance:

Defendant community credit cooperative asserts that it does not have a duty to return unjust enrichment because it constitutes a third party who acquired the right to collateral security in good faith without registering the purpose of prohibition of separate disposal.

If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence Nos. 1 and Nos. 1 and 2, the establishment registration of a new mortgage is completed on the instant land of F on August 5, 2002 by Defendant community credit cooperatives, and since August 8, 2002, F was deemed to have disposed of separately the shares of this case and the section for exclusive use of the building from August 8, 2002, and the above establishment registration of a new mortgage is valid. However, the Plaintiff did not assert the invalidity of the establishment registration of a new mortgage, but sought the return of dividends therefrom. Thus, the above assertion different from the premise is without merit.

The following shall be added to the tenthth sentence of the first instance court:

The Plaintiff sought the return of the amount of property tax, etc. paid in 2014, while seeking the return thereof. However, according to the respective descriptions of No. 10-1, 2, and 3, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs paid property tax, etc. in 2014 regarding housing that is not the land of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

At the bottom of the 11th decision of the first instance, the following shall be added:

If evidence Nos. 10 and 11 of Eul added the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant community credit cooperatives paid KRW 4,756,425 to the plaintiff on January 28, 2015 (excluding the provisional execution of the judgment of the first instance court, which was paid on January 20, 2015), and each of the 115,520,106 won to the designated parties, respectively, is recognized. Thus, the above money is as follows.