The judgment below

Among the damages for delay of KRW 1,008,711,000, this part of the case is reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. (1) Where a reconstruction association which has obtained approval of a business plan under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act prior to the enforcement of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) provides for cash liquidation of land, etc. in its articles of association or regulations, etc. as to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”), it shall liquidate in cash to the members who did not apply for parcelling-out or withdraw in accordance with the methods and procedures stipulated by the articles of association

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da15134, Sept. 8, 2011). Meanwhile, in a case where a reconstruction association which obtained approval of a project plan under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act prior to the enforcement of the Urban Improvement Act bears the obligation to pay liquidation money to the association members, etc. who did not apply for parcelling-out, under the principle of equity, the association members are obliged to transfer the ownership of land, etc. to the reconstruction association in the state of non-existence of rights restriction, and the obligation of the reconstruction association to transfer the ownership without such restriction of rights and

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da37780 Decided October 9, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da19768 Decided July 25, 2013). However, in cases where the owner of land, etc. has completed the registration of transfer of ownership to a reconstruction association on land, etc. but the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage has not been cancelled, the scope of liquidation money for which a reconstruction association may refuse payment by asserting the simultaneous performance of the registration of establishment of a mortgage at the time of cash settlement pursuant to the articles of association or regulations shall be determined in accordance with the concept of equity and the principle of good faith in light of the fundamental purport of recognizing the right to defense of simultaneous performance.

However, the following are related to cash settlement relations that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the rules of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the text and overall contents of the management and disposal plan standards indicated in the record.