1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in the case where the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance " February 1, 2012" is "by January 1, 2012," thereby citing this part in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the parties' assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s establishment promotion committee of this case was obligated to demand consent for authorization and permission for housing redevelopment rearrangement project to its members pursuant to the instant service contract. The Plaintiff did not perform this duty. Accordingly, the Plaintiff determined that the implementation of the above business was impossible and rescinded the above service contract. Therefore, pursuant to Articles 4 and 3 of the Loan Agreement of this case, the Defendants lose the benefit of the repayment obligation, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to refund the loan and its delay damages to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendants’ obligation to obtain consent for authorization and permission for housing redevelopment rearrangement project from the members pursuant to the instant service contract of this case is not in the establishment promotion committee of this case, but in the Plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff did not implement this. The plaintiff's expression of intent to cancel the service contract of this case was made without the grounds for cancellation, and thus, it is inappropriate to accept the claim for return of the loan of this case on the premise that the grounds for loss of benefit of time did not occur.

B. 1) Interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the party gave to the act of indicating the consent of the union members. Although it is not subject to the phrase used in writing, it should be reasonably interpreted from the objective meaning that the party gives to the act of indicating the consent regardless of the party’s inner intent.

Supreme Court on February 28, 2013