Of the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff, KRW 707,50,000 out of the liquidation debt against Defendant B and its related thereto.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the second and third points, Article 19(1) and 47 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012); and Article 19(1) and 47 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents

In light of Articles 60(1) and 61(1) and (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27409, Jul. 28, 2016); Article 48 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27409, Jul. 28, 2016); and general process in which a project implementer collects charges on landowners, such as land, etc., a cooperative, which is a project implementer in a housing reconstruction project, may impose and collect the difference between the cost of the rearrangement project and revenues accrued in the course of implementing the rearrangement project pursuant to Article 61(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. However, where a cooperative member becomes a person subject to cash liquidation upon meeting the requirements prescribed by the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, barring any special circumstance, the cooperative cannot impose and collect surcharges under Article 2714(2).