1. The defendant jointly with the petition construction company, and each of them is 18,000,000 won for the plaintiff A and 50,000,000 for the plaintiff B.

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, No. 2-1, No. 2 and No. 3:

On July 10, 2006, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract on vicarious sale related to the sale of the apartment 155 households in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant parcelling-out agency contract”) with the Defendant and the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Petition Construction”).

B. Upon entering into the above contract, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 100 million as a security deposit to the Defendant and the petitioner construction. The Plaintiffs paid the above KRW 100 million by August 30, 2006.

The defendant and the petition construction agreed to refund the above purchase deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the plaintiffs by January 30, 2007.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff F, the creditor of the Plaintiff F, received a seizure and collection order on the part of KRW 32 million from among the claims for return of the sale deposit against the said Defendant, and served the Defendant around that time.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A the amount of 18 million won (the claim amount of the above plaintiff 50 million won - the claim amount of the collection order - the claim amount of the above plaintiff 50 million won) with the refund of the sale deposit, in collaboration with the petition construction unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff A the amount calculated by each ratio of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 31, 2007 until December 3, 2015, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, from January 31, 2007 until December 3, 2015, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The judgment of the defendant's assertion (1) The defendant is a contract that imposes a burden on the defendant's union members, and thus the defendant's general meeting resolution is adopted in accordance with Article 24 (3) 5 of the Urban and Residential Environment Improvement Act and Article 18 (7) of the defendant's articles of association.