In a case where the Housing Redevelopment Association violated the right to receive allocation of a large-level apartment by mistakenly calculating the value of the previous assets of some members and treating them as members of a small-scale apartment as members, the case holding that if the average purchase price of the ordinary apartment complex with an objective value high as at the time of infringement of the right exceeds the average purchase price of the members of the ordinary apartment complex with an objective value higher than the average value as at the time of infringement of the right, the above members suffered economic loss equivalent to the difference, and in this case, if the profit was derived from exceeding the sale price of the ordinary apartment complex with an objective value smaller than that of the small ordinary apartment complex, the deducted amount constitutes an ordinary economic loss suffered by the above members, and even if the association provided the above members with an opportunity to receive allocation of a large-scale ordinary apartment, it cannot be deemed that the damage suffered by the members was not compensated, but the damage should be deducted from the compensation amount for damage.

Articles 393(1), 396, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 1

Yellow School District Housing Redevelopment Association (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Yoon-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na97750 decided December 9, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff (appointed parties) and 2,3,4 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs", and individually referred to as "Plaintiffs") caused the defendant's error in calculating the standard price for the sale of the apartment units, thereby failing to be given an opportunity to participate in the 33th class apartment units by lot and the right to receive the allocation of apartment units. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the transaction price of the right to receive the allocation of the 33th class apartment units at the time of the 33th class drawing, and the difference between the transaction price of the right to receive the allocation of the 23th class apartment units at the time of the 33th class apartment units at the time of the 1st class drawing, and that the defendant provided the plaintiffs an opportunity to receive the allocation of the 33th class apartment units at the time of the administrative litigation, or that the plaintiffs were unable to receive the allocation of the 333th class apartment units at the time of the above 38th class apartment unit or 3838th class apartment units.

(2) Furthermore, in calculating a specific amount of damages, the lower court determined that: (a) based on the market price as of June 14, 2006, which was 196,616,000 won from among the relevant ordinary apartment units as of June 14, 2006 (the market price was calculated by integrating the general sale price of the relevant apartment units and the transaction cases of similar apartment units) and the difference between the sale price of the association members (However, considering risks to future uncertainty, 10% has been deducted); (b) based on the method of calculating the transaction price of the right to the relevant ordinary apartment units, 154,854,000 and 23 square apartment units, which are 109,238,000 won which are the transaction price of the right to the association members and 40,000 won which are 60,000 won which are the difference between the original sale price of the right to the association members and 205,000 won which were 30,015,08,008,05,008,08,2.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

(1) In a case where the Defendant, a housing redevelopment association, mistakenly calculated the Plaintiff’s previous asset value as a member, and treated the Plaintiffs as members, thereby infringing the Plaintiffs’ right to receive allocation of 33 square-type apartment buildings, and the average objective value of the 33 square-type apartment-type apartment-type apartment-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type (33 square-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type (333)

(2) Meanwhile, on the grounds that it is impossible for the Defendant to establish a management and disposal plan again and adjust all the Dongs and numbers of its members, even if, at its option, the Defendant provided the Plaintiffs with an opportunity to receive allocation of the withheld apartment of the 7th floor, which is the lowest floor among the 33th square-type apartments, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant provided an opportunity to receive allocation of the apartment by participating in the Dong and unit lot lot of the 33th square-type apartments subject to the initial association members, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the damage of the Plaintiffs was compensated as alleged by the Defendant. However, the damages compensated by the Plaintiff 4 by being allocated for the withheld apartment of the 33th square-type apartment shall be deducted from the amount of damages that the Defendant should compensate for to the Plaintiff 4.

(3) In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the concept and occurrence of damages or ordinary damages

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Selections: Omitted

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)