beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 as well as annual 5% from April 27, 2013 to January 26, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 to 8 (including paper numbers) and the entire purport of the pleadings:
On March 18, 1998, the defendant was a housing reconstruction project partnership that obtained authorization for establishment under Article 44 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 5835 of February 8, 1999) to implement a housing reconstruction project by designating B-J housing and C-C housing as a project implementation district of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and the plaintiff is the owner of B-Jed B-J 102.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing reconstruction project,” and No. 102 above, B.
Defendant Union was authorized to implement the instant housing reconstruction project by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office on September 1, 2008.
C. From February 10, 2010, the period for application for parcelling-out in the housing reconstruction project of this case, the plaintiff who was a member of the defendant association.
3. Until November, 200, the project implementer has not filed an application for parcelling-out, and accordingly, became a person subject to cash settlement pursuant to Article 47 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 10268, Apr. 15, 2010).
However, the Plaintiff at the time asserted that if he loses ownership of the instant housing, the Plaintiff would lose the status of a rental business operator eligible for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, thereby resulting in an increase in the burden of capital gains tax exceeding 80 million won, and demanded to compensate for such losses at the time of cash settlement. The Defendant Union refused to comply therewith, and there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Union on cash settlement.