Hanjin Industries Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Jeon Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1

Defendant 2 and two others

Defendant 5 and one other (Attorney Im Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

may 22, 2006

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2004Gahap5806, 2004Gahap13784 decided Dec. 2, 2004

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),

(1) As regards the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s KRW 65,44,438 and KRW 40,00,000 among them, 14% per annum from September 1, 2004 to April 26, 2006; KRW 11,437,00 per annum from September 1, 2004 to April 26, 2006; and KRW 20% per annum from April 27, 2006 to complete payment;

(2) Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 2 is 86,770,625 won and 57,379,662 won among them, 12% per annum from September 1, 2004 to April 26, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

(3) Defendant 3’s 136,514,162 won and 30,000,000 won among them are 14% per annum from September 1, 2004 to April 26, 2006, 12% per annum from September 1, 2004 to April 26, 2006; and 20% per annum from April 27, 2006 to the date of full payment;

(4) As to KRW 142,97,188 and KRW 1,298,107 from September 1, 2004 to April 26, 2006, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 4 was 14% per annum for KRW 93,615,48 per annum, from September 1, 2004 to April 26, 2006, and 20% per annum for KRW 12% per annum for KRW 93,615,448; and from April 27, 2006 to the date of full payment;

(5) Defendant 5 shall pay 103,675,032 won and 68,558,205 won among them at the rate of 12% per annum from September 1, 2004 to April 26, 2006, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

(6) Defendant 6 is 12% per annum from September 1, 2004 to April 26, 2006, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, with respect to KRW 67,445,027 and KRW 45,359,366 among them;

sub-payment.

B. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage completed by the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 17662, Mar. 18, 2004, as to the real estate No. 2 of the attached Table No. 1 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 2.

C. The remaining claims of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 1, 3, and 4 are dismissed, respectively.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be ten minutes including the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff (including the counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (including the counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The principal lawsuit: The defendant (including the counterclaim; hereinafter referred to as the "the plaintiff"), 1, 67,00 won, 67,014,965 won and 51,437,00 won among them, 2, 140,625 won and 57,379,662 won among them, Defendant 3 paid 140,35,806 won and 88,580,458 won among them, and Defendant 4 paid 143,163,235 won and 94,979,860 won among them, and Defendant 5 paid 103,675,032 won and 68,58,205 won among them, and Defendant 6,47,425,205 won and 57,67,475,67,47,475,65, and 205 won from among them, to 36,465,275, and 9465.2.3

Counterclaim: Section 1-B of the Disposition No. 1-B and the plaintiff will implement the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was completed on March 18, 2004 by the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 17660 with respect to the real estate No. 1 listed in the Attached Table No. 1-B, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was completed on March 18, 2004 by the defendant 3, the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage, which was completed on February 6, 2004 by the same court No. 17665 with respect to the third real estate listed in the same list, and the registration procedures for cancellation are completed.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the plaintiff among the main lawsuit of the court of first instance against the defendant 1 and the part against the other defendants shall be revoked. The plaintiff shall pay 9,896,790 won and 7,291,015 won from September 1, 2004 to the day of full payment. The remaining defendants shall pay 20% of the amount against the plaintiff as to the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance. The part against the plaintiff as to the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant 2,3, and 4 shall be revoked. The plaintiff shall be dismissed.

Defendant 1: In the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the same defendant as to the principal lawsuit and the part concerning the same defendant's counterclaim shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 as to the revocation part of the principal lawsuit shall be dismissed, and the plaintiff will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring establishment registration completed on March 18, 2004 by the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 17660 as to the real estate No. 1 in the attached Table 1.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 2-1 through 5, Eul evidence 3-1 through 6, Eul evidence 5-1 through 6, Gap evidence 5-1 through 6, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 1-1 through 3, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-1 through 44, 47, 48, 54, 55, 56, 61 through 64, 67 through 71, 80 through 85, 88, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4-4, and Eul evidence 3-3, and part of Eul evidence 7-3, which are contrary to this, shall not be trusted:

A. Status of the parties

(1) On December 1, 1973, the housing improvement redevelopment partnership designated as the housing improvement redevelopment district by the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 1973-470 of the Ministry of Construction and Public Notice No. 1973 of December 1, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “non-party partnership”) shall be comprised of the owners of the land in the above business area, etc. for the purpose of implementing the housing improvement redevelopment project that constructs apartment and appurtenant welfare facilities on the lot of 14,347 square meters of land in Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul for the purpose of implementing the housing improvement redevelopment project that constructs apartment and appurtenant welfare facilities. The Defendants are the owners of the land and the ground buildings located in the business area of the non-party partnership and invested in the non-party partnership.

(2) On September 14, 1994, Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. (formerly, Japan Development Co., Ltd.) concluded a participation agreement with the non-party association with the following contents, which was incorporated into the plaintiff on August 9, 199.

(a) Main contents: New construction of various facilities (including supplementary facilities) within the area for the execution of the project finally authorized by the head of the competent permitting agency, and lending, etc. of funds necessary for the implementation of the project;

(B) The construction cost shall be KRW 1,997,00 per square year, and the construction period shall be within 40 months following the date following the date of removal of obstacles within the project implementation district and the completion of the relocation of residues.

(3) The loan (excluding relocation expenses) under paragraph (1) shall be applied at the rate of 14% per annum on the date following the date following the date of the loan payment, and the interest rate shall be 14% per annum after the date of the moving (12 months). (4) The loan shall be repaid the principal and interest within the date stipulated by the individual contract at the time of the loan, and where the loan is delayed, the loan shall be additionally paid the interest at the rate of 17% per annum.

(D) A relocation expenses (Article 13): ① A shall be the maximum amount of KRW 40,00,000 per household for the members of the building who own the building that he/she wishes to rent to the association through B (No interest rate of KRW 30,000,000, interest rate of KRW 10,000 per household). ② The lending period of interest-free interest out of the relocation expenses shall be the starting date of the occupancy, and when this period expires, the interest rate of 14% per annum shall be applied. ④ In order to guarantee the repayment of the moving expenses of the association members who receive the moving expenses, A shall enter into a monetary loan contract with B as the creditor, and a joint guarantor shall be set up with the maximum amount of debt of KRW 130,00 for the moving expenses borrowed by B as the first mortgagee, and the previous land, etc. of the association members shall be omitted. ⑤ ⑤

(e) Repayment of loan (Article 27): ① The total amount of principal and interest on the moving expenses to be lent by B and the loan for the purchase of State and public land owned by B shall be collected by A and repaid to B within the occupancy period designated by B after consultation between A and B. If a partner who has received the moving expenses transfers the rights to previous land, etc., A shall immediately repay the total amount of the principal and interest on the loan from the transferor or transferee at the time of transfer or takeover. ② A shall collect the interest on arrears of 17% per annum for the period from the expiration date of the occupancy period determined by B and the date of redemption to the date of expiration of the transfer or takeover.

(b) The first management and disposition plan and the revocation lawsuit therefor;

(1) On September 24, 1998, the non-party association held an extraordinary general meeting of its members and passed a resolution to pass the management and disposal plan including the method for settling the difference between the value of land, etc. invested in the redevelopment project and the value of the apartment, etc. to be sold by its members (referring to the method for calculating the liquidation amount) (hereinafter “the first management and disposal plan”). The first management and disposal plan was authorized by the head of Seongdong-gu Office on January 29, 199.

(2) According to the former Urban Redevelopment Act (amended by Act No. 5116 of Dec. 29, 195), the management and disposal plan determines the estimated value of the site or building facilities scheduled for parcelling-out by subject of parcelling-out, the details of the previous land and building facilities, and the date of the public announcement of the implementation of the project (Article 34(4)3 of the Act). In a case where there is a difference between the price of the land or building previously owned and the price of the site or building facilities sold in lots, the implementer shall collect or pay the difference after the public announcement of the parcelling-out disposal (Article 42(1)3 of the Act). Meanwhile, according to the articles of incorporation of the non-party association, if there is a difference between the standard value of the site or building facilities and the price of the building site or building facilities sold in lots, the association shall collect or pay the difference, and if the association bears the expenses of the management and disposal plan, the association shall calculate the total amount of the pre-owned land or building facilities by proportion to the construction cost per subject to the provisions of Article 48.

(3) On September 24, 1998, the non-party union made a resolution of the first management and disposal plan at the general meeting of partners, and calculated the provisional settlement money to be paid by its members based on the provisions of the above articles of association. As a result, the provisional settlement money against the Defendants was determined as stated in the column of the amount of liquidation money collected in the attached Table 2.

Liquidation money = Standard price for sale - Value of right to sale (value of buildings sold in lots)

The standard price for sale = Value of previous rights ( appraised value of previous land and buildings) ¡¿ proportional rate;

The proportional ratio = (the total estimated amount of sites and construction facilities after the completion of the project in the zone - the total project cost) ¡À (the total value of previous land and buildings within the zone).

(4) At the time, the non-party association, at the time, intended to increase the proportional rate by 5.4% through the approval of the management and disposal plan in cases where the sales revenue of the general apartment units increases due to the autonomousization of the sales revenue of the apartment units at the time of the non-party association, when the statutory sales revenue of the general housing unit is regulated to be below the actual construction cost, or when the losses incurred by the sale of the redevelopment housing unit to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City due to the sale of the redevelopment housing unit in salt in accordance with the guidelines for the housing improvement and redevelopment project in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

(5) However, prior to the approval of the first management and disposal plan, the Defendants filed an administrative suit against the non-party partnership on the ground that the part of the first management and disposal plan, which was calculated as stated in the above paragraph (3), applied a proportional ratio of 40% to the amount of liquidation money collected from the Defendants to the Seoul Administrative Court, violates the standards for calculating liquidation money under the Urban Redevelopment Act. As a result, on October 6, 1999, the above court’s decision on October 6, 199, where the sale price is determined in accordance with the standards for liquidation under the redevelopment Project Act, which was inevitable due to regulation, is the cost necessary for implementing the redevelopment project, and the members shared the sale price in proportion to the value of the site and constructed facilities. However, if the result of the execution of the redevelopment project is based on the liquidation standards set by the non-party partnership’s association, such loss is calculated in proportion to the value of the previous right, which is the price of the land or building held before the implementation of the redevelopment project. Therefore, the above provision on the liquidation price of the apartment was unlawful and void.

However, on February 7, 2001, the above court dismissed the appeal filed by the non-party union on this decision as Seoul High Court Decision 99Nu14821, but on the same grounds as the first instance court, the non-party union appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2027, but the non-party union appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2027, May 29, 2001.

(c) Conclusion of supply contracts and modification of management and disposal plans;

(1) However, as a result of the implementation of autonomous measures, it is anticipated that the sales revenue will increase, the non-party union may adjust the proportional ratio from 40% to 55.4% according to the management and disposal plan to its members around March 16, 199. On March 23, 199, the non-party union held a general meeting of shareholders and notified that the proportional ratio would be applied 55.4%, and entered into a supply contract with its members on the premise that the proportional ratio would be 5.4% as to the apartment unit by April 20, 199, and the main contents are as follows.

(A) Obligations (Article 1; hereinafter the same shall apply): ① Pursuant to the assessment value of the previous land, buildings, etc. invested by Eul (hereinafter the same shall apply) in accordance with the assessment value of the land, buildings, etc. invested by Eul (hereinafter the same shall apply), the details of the settlement money to be distributed to Eul (hereinafter the same shall apply) and the settlement money to be paid to Eul (hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be in accordance with the authorized management and disposition plan. ② The individual principal of the non-owned state-owned and public-owned land purchased collectively by the non-party partnership shall be paid in addition to the payment of the balance.

(B) A. (Article 2): ① Payment of the liquidation money, etc.: (a) Payment of the liquidation money, etc. (a) by the association’s articles of association, to the king (Account Number 1 omitted); (b) Payment of the settlement money, to the deposit account holder A; and (c) A does not have a separate obligation to notify the date of payment of the intermediate payment, to B; (b) If A and C enter into or delay the payment after the date designated in Article 1, the payment shall be made by adding the overdue interest of 17% per annum from the date of designation of the occupancy to the date of actual payment; and the remainder shall also be paid by adding the overdue interest

(C) Payment and occupancy of the amount of all the liabilities such as liquidation money (Article 4): B may, within the period designated for occupancy, take occupancy into account only when the principal and interest of various loans, interest and the amount of the obligation, such as the liquidation money, and the liquidation money calculated by the articles of incorporation of the Urban Redevelopment Act and the cooperative, paid in full to the bank account designated by A and all of the obligations

(d)A discount charge, late payment charge and penalty for delay (Article 9): (1) If the date of the contract has elapsed due to a delay in the payment of the price under Article 1, B shall apply to the number of elapsed days, plus the late payment charge calculated under Article 2, Section 2, and if the amount of the payment is insufficient, it shall be calculated as having been first paid.

(e) Other matters (Article 16): (1) through (4) are omitted. (5) The provisional settlement money of B may be modified due to a change in the management and disposition plan of A, and in this case the difference between the provisional settlement money of Article 1 and the changed provisional settlement money shall be paid by including the balance when it is occupied.

(2) The Defendants: (a) won each apartment building in the column of “Dongho Lake” (hereinafter “each apartment building of this case”) as indicated below, and entered into each supply contract (hereinafter “each supply contract of this case”); and (b) at the time, the Defendants paid the provisional settlement money to be paid in installments under the name of the sale price was determined as indicated in the column of “collection of settlement money” in the attached Table 3 by applying the proportional ratio of 5.4% expected to have been increased in the sales price, taking into account that the provisional settlement money to be paid in installments would have been increased. The date and amount of redemption for each Defendant’s provisional settlement money as stipulated in Article 1 of each supply contract of this case is as listed below.

(amount-unit: Won)

본문내 포함된 표 항 목 동호수 계 약 금 1차 중도금 2차 중도금 잔 금 지급기일 ？ 99. 4. 20. 99. 7. 20. 99. 10. 20. 입주시 피고 1 101-306 13,632,296 11,360,247 11,360,247 9,088,197 피고 2 101-701 34,102,699 28,418,916 28,418,916 22,735,132 피고 3 101-703 31,428,973 26,190,811 26,190,811 20,952,648 피고 4 101-802 28,404,266 23,670,221 23,670,221 18,936,177 피고 5 101-1502 39,039,470 32,532,892 32,532,892 26,026,313 피고 6 103-304 37,507,076 31,255,897 31,255,897 25,004,717

(3) On May 17, 199, the non-party union filed an application for the amendment to the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “the second management and disposition plan”) with the Seongdong-gu Office for the amendment of the management and disposition plan (hereinafter “the second management and disposition plan”) to raise the ratio from 40% to 5.4% by reflecting the increase in the price of general apartment units sold in lots and the increase and decrease in the design, and obtained the amendment to the same contents from Seongdong-gu Office on July 13, 199. In accordance with the second management and disposition plan, the amount of the liquidation money against the defendants was set as the amount of each supply contract of this case according to the increase in the ratio above.

(d) Distribution of the purchase price of non-Possession State and public land, and moving expenses of the plaintiff;

(1) In accordance with the articles of association and the management and disposition plan, the non-party association purchased the land not occupied by the partners among the State-owned and public land within the redevelopment project zone, and distributed it to the partners subject to the sale, and paid 11,437,000 won in addition to the balance of the settlement money.

(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff lent the relocation expenses to Defendant 3, 1, 2, and 4 as stipulated in the participation agreement with the Nonparty Union (in the case of the interest-interest relocation expenses, the interest rate of 14% per annum, the date of maturity of payment, and the delay interest rate of 17% per annum).

(A) Defendant 1: 40,000,000 on June 9, 1997

June 9, 1997 10,000,000 won for moving expenses for interest on June 9, 199

June 16, 1997 10,000 won for moving expenses of interest on June 16, 199

(B) Defendant 2: 30,000,000 on April 2, 1995

(C) Defendant 3: 30,000,000 on April 2, 1995

(D) Defendant 4: 30,000,000 on April 2, 1995

on April 2, 1995 20,000 won for moving expenses of interest.

E. The defendants' provisional payment of liquidation money and occupancy circumstance

(1) After the conclusion of each of the instant supply contracts, the Defendants paid the following money to the non-party partnership under the pretext of sale price, etc.

(A) Defendant 1: 32,030,100 won on April 26, 2002

August 13, 2002 1,601,180 won

on October 16, 2002 KRW 50,779,331 in total) 17,148,051

(B) Defendant 2: 13,038,180 won on April 28, 2000

on April 28, 2000 KRW 30,000,000

on May 9, 2000 KRW 36,296,00

on May 10, 200 20,000 won or more (total of 9,334,180 won or more)

(C) Defendant 3: 57,619,784 won on August 25, 1999

(D) Defendant 4: 1,000,000 won on May 15, 2000

on May 26, 200 1,009,400

on April 2, 2002 KRW 50,000,000 + + 11,437,000 + 1,601,180)

on August 22, 2002 2,009,400 won

on October 16, 2000 won or more (total of 97,677,690 won or more)

(E) Defendant 5: April 27, 1999 KRW 39,039,470

on August 5, 1999 KRW 22,533,892

on May 12, 2000 won and above 74,011,542 won and above

(F) Defendant 6: 37,000,000 won on April 28, 1999

on July 21, 1999 KRW 17,00,000

on October 29, 199 20,000,000

on June 200 KRW 13,038,180

5,664,220 on August 11, 200 (total amounting to 92,702,400)

(2) Meanwhile, the majority of the members of the non-party association except the defendants did not raise any objection to the details of the apartment supply contract and the liquidation money stipulated in the management and disposal plan of the non-party association around April 200. However, the defendants did not allow the plaintiff who occupied each of the apartment of this case on the ground that they raised an objection to the settlement money computed by the plaintiff association. Accordingly, on February 17, 2001, the defendants filed an appeal against the non-party association and the plaintiff under Seoul East East District Court 201Kahap386 against the non-party association and the plaintiff for each of the apartment of this case on January 11, 202, and the defendants moved into each of the apartment of this case on February 1, 2002. The defendants moved into the apartment of this case immediately after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered.

After that, the non-party union and the plaintiff appealed to the Seoul High Court No. 2002Na9112 on November 8, 2002, and the decision was finalized on December 6, 2002 that the defendants can use each apartment of this case on condition that they deposit the prescribed amount of money. The main reason is that the non-party union should calculate the amount of liquidation for the defendants, as long as the cancellation judgment on the part of the amount of liquidation collected against the defendants in the first management and disposition plan as above became final and conclusive on December 6 of the same year, the non-party union should calculate the amount of liquidation for the defendants. The defendants can move into each apartment of this case only if they pay the amount of liquidation, moving expenses, and the amount of State and public land distribution. However, in the case of the remaining defendants except the defendant 1, the non-party union is unable to pay the amount of liquidation by avoiding the lawful calculation of the amount of liquidation, and in the case of defendant 1, the remaining amount should be appropriated for the remainder of the amount of liquidation paid to the non-party association.

F. The settlement agreement and transfer of sales price bonds between the plaintiff and the non-party partnership

(1) On January 28, 2001, the Plaintiff agreed to increase the construction amount to KRW 2,770,000 per square year among the terms and conditions of the participation agreement as above, and lower the sales price (provisional settlement) and the interest rate on the payment of the State-owned or public land to KRW 12% per annum, and to change the payment period of the State-owned or public land to May 26, 2000, which is the starting date of occupancy. At the same time, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer to the Plaintiff all cash (pass) owned by the Nonparty union as the payment for the construction price to the Plaintiff and the debt such as all kinds of business loans and interest, etc., and the settlement agreement was reached to transfer to the Plaintiff all of the sales price to the Plaintiff.

(2) After completing the construction, the Plaintiff completed the pre-use inspection on June 18, 2001. The non-party partnership transferred the remaining sales price or provisional settlement money (which is indicated as contributions) and bonds such as the State-owned or public-owned land allotment price (which are stated in the attached Table 5 No. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 14) to the Plaintiff on January 27, 2004, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the said assignment. Each of the notification reached the Defendants around that time.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff acquired the sale price and the claim for the share of the government-owned land from the non-party partnership to the defendants, and the plaintiff directly lent the moving expenses to the defendants, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff is liable to pay the sale price, the share of the government-owned land, the moving expenses, the delayed payment damages (the purchase price, the share of the government-owned land, the delayed payment damages from May 27, 2000 to August 31, 2004, respectively), and the unpaid principal from September 1, 2004 to the date of full payment.

(2) On this issue, the Defendants: (a) since the liquidation money and the claim for the payment of the State-owned or public land should be settled collectively in accordance with the instant management and disposition plan, the above claims are prohibited from transfer; or (b) since they agreed to collectively settle the accounts under each supply contract of this case, they cannot claim the above claims against the Defendants; and (c) in the process of the redevelopment project, the Defendants were aware of this, they did not distinguish the liquidation money, the liquidation money, the State-owned or public land allotment amount, and the loan; (b) in the process of the redevelopment project, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to collectively settle the accounts without distinguishing the loan; (d) the transfer of all rights and obligations to the Plaintiff on January 27, 2001 should be deemed to have been transferred in lieu of the liquidation of the partnership; and (e) the Defendants’ claim for the payment of the liquidation money cannot be made in violation of the good faith principle; and (e) the Defendants’ claim for the payment of the liquidation money to the Plaintiff on the ground that there was no property in the redevelopment association.

B. Determination on the assertion of the claim prohibited from transfer

First, the claim for the sale price of this case and the claim for the sale price of state-owned or public-owned land are claims prohibited from transfer, and the claim for which the transfer of civil claims is not permitted is the case where the purpose of the claim can not be achieved in the case of the transfer of the claim in light of its nature, or where the creditor's transfer of the claim would lose its identity if the creditor is changed, or the transfer of the claim is limited by law. In this case, the claim sought by the plaintiff in this case is not the liquidation amount, but the claim for the sale price and the sale price of state-owned or public-owned land, and the claim is the claim for the sale price and the sale price of state-owned or public-owned

In addition, Article 16(5) of the supply contract of this case provides that the defendants, a partner of the non-party association, may modify the liquidation amount due to the amendment of the management and disposition plan of the non-party association, and the difference in the liquidation amount shall be paid including the balance at the time of occupancy. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the non-party association and the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to make a lump sum settlement, or that the non-party association and the defendants agreed not to transfer the above claims, and there is no other

C. Determination on the assertion of the comprehensive settlement of relocation expenses

Then, as to whether there was an explicit or implied agreement to settle moving expenses against the Defendants in the instant case, the sale price of the government-owned land, and the sale price of the government-owned land, or whether there was an agreement to do so, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the members and the Plaintiff were to settle the entire accounts without distinguishing the liquidation money, the sale price of the government-owned land, and the loan, and as seen below, there is no need to collectively settle them in the instant case where the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the sale price, the sale price of the government-owned land, the sale price of the moving expenses, or the moving expenses, and it is not recognized that the Plaintiff or the non-party partnership has any claim against the Plaintiff.

D. Determination on the assertion that performance is impossible due to the cancellation of the management and disposal plan

(1) Since the part of the management and disposal plan which serves as the basis for the plaintiff to seek the sale price, etc. against the defendants was revoked, the non-party union's claim for the payment of the liquidation money according to the previous management and disposal plan without following the new management and disposal plan or a new decision on the settlement money pursuant to the new criteria is not possible. Therefore, the defendants' obligation to pay the liquidation money is in the status of nonperformance. Therefore, the claim for the payment of the State-owned land and public land, which constitutes the detailed items of the liquidation money claim, cannot be claimed separately in the relation subject to the collective settlement. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's claim is groundless since the defendants' payment of the principal and interest of the relocation expenses was

(2) In the management and disposition plan decided on September 24, 1998, the non-party union rendered a revocation judgment on the part that determined the amount of liquidation money to be collected by applying the proportional ratio of 40% to the defendants, and the above judgment became final and conclusive. Meanwhile, the non-party union also made a decision on the same day that the management and disposition plan can be revised by applying the proportional ratio of 55.4% when the sales revenue in the future increase on the same day. On March 23, 1999, the non-party union notified its members to be applied the proportional ratio of 55.4% to the members at the general meeting at the general meeting at the same time, and entered into a supply contract on the apartment with each of the members on the premise of the proportional ratio of 5.4% to the apartment house. On July 13, 1999, the defendants' assertion that the change of the management and disposition plan of this case was approved by the previous 40% from 55.4% to 5.4% to 5.4% to 15% to the above judgment as mentioned above.97% judgment.

E. The defendants' debt amount

Therefore, as follows, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sales price, the payment of the State-owned land, the payment of moving expenses, the sales price and the payment of the State-owned land from May 27, 200 to May 27, 200, the date following the occupancy commencement date, 14% per annum for the loan of moving expenses (the overdue interest rate of 17% from May 27, 2000, the date following the payment date), and 14% per annum for the loan with interest-free interest (the application of Article 12(3) of the evidence No. 3) from May 27, 200 to May 27, 200.

(A) Defendant 1

(1) Sales price: No (en fully paid).

(2) National and public land allotment costs: 11,437,00 won.

(3) Loans extended with interest and moving expenses (as of June 9, 1997): 10 million won.

(4) Loans extended with interest accrued and moving expenses ( dated June 16, 1997): 10 million won.

(5) Loans with no interest-free relocation expenses (as of June 9, 1997): 40 million won.

(B) Defendant 2

(1) Sale price: 113,675,662 won.

(2) National and public land allotment costs: 11,437,00 won.

(3) Loans with no interest-free relocation expenses ( dated April 2, 1995): 30 million won.

(C) Defendant 3

(1) Sale price: 104,763,242 won.

(2) National and public land allotment costs: 11,437,00 won.

(3) Loans with no interest-free relocation expenses ( dated April 2, 1995): 30 million won.

(D) Defendant 4

(1) Sale price: 94,680,886 won.

(2) National and public land allotment costs: 11,437,00 won.

(3) Loans extended with interest and moving expenses (as of April 2, 1995): 20 million won.

(4) Loans with no interest-free relocation expenses ( dated April 2, 1995): 30 million won.

(E) Defendant 5

(1) Sale price: 130,131,567 won.

(2) National and public land allotment costs: 11,437,00 won.

(f) Defendant 6

(1) Sale price: 125,023,586 won.

(2) National and public land allotment costs: 11,437,00 won.

(f) Remaining obligations after repayment and appropriation;

(1) Meanwhile, the fact that the Defendants paid the sales price, etc. to the non-party union and the Plaintiff after the conclusion of each supply contract of this case is as seen earlier. Accordingly, if the Defendants appropriated the payment of the Plaintiff’s obligations to the Defendants as indicated in the separate sheet No. 5 as of August 31, 2004, according to the method of appropriation as seen earlier, the remaining amount of obligations as of August 31,

(2) Method of appropriation

In full view of the overall purport of pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 2-1 through 5, No. 30 through 44, 68 through 71, 80 through 85, the plaintiff and the defendants concluded a supply contract for each of the apartment buildings of this case and designated the deposit account (Account No. 1 omitted; hereinafter "1") of the Housing Bank under the name of the plaintiff and the non-party cooperative. The non-party association allowed the members to transfer the amount of the State-owned land and public land to the deposit account (Account No. 2 omitted; hereinafter "Second account") in the name of the non-party cooperative's name; the plaintiff transferred the money to the plaintiff's housing bank (Account No. 3 omitted; hereinafter "Account No. 3") to the non-party cooperative's account No. 4 to the non-party cooperative's account before the transfer of the money to the non-party cooperative's account No. 1, 201.

(3) The remaining debts after the discharge by the Defendants

(A) Defendant 1

(1) National and public land allotment costs: 11,437,00 won, interest rate of 2,816,322 won.

(2) Loans with no interest-free relocation expenses (as of June 9, 1997): 40 million won, interest 10,509,589 won.

(3) Aggregate: Principal: 51,437,00 won, interest 14,07,438 won, and principal and interest 65,44,438 won.

(B) Defendant 2

(1) Sale price: 57,379,662 won, interest 29,390,963 won.

(2) Principal and interest: 86,770,625 won

(C) Defendant 3

(1) Sale price: 47,143,458 won, interest 24,147,783 won.

(2) National and public land allotment costs: 11,437,00 won, interest rate of 5,858,250 won.

(3) Loans with no interest-free relocation expenses (as of April 2, 1995): 30 million won, interest 17,927,671 won.

(4) Total amount: Principal: 88,580,458, interest 47,933,704, principal and interest 136,514,162 won.

(D) Defendant 4

(1) Sale price: 92,674,794, interest 47,469,806 won.

(2) National and public land allotment costs: 940,654 won, interest 272,763 won.

(3) Loans with no interest-free relocation expenses (as of April 2, 1995): 1,298,107, interest 341,064 won.

(4) Total amount: Principal: 94,913,55 won, interest 48,083,633 won, principal and interest 142,97,188 won.

(E) Defendant 5

(1) Sale price: 68,58,205 won, interest 35,116,827 won.

(2) Principal and interest: 103,675,032 won

(f) Defendant 6

(1) Sale price: 45,359,366 won, interest 22,085,661 won.

(2) Principal and interest: 67,445,027 won.

G. Determination as to Defendant 1’s defense of offset

Defendant 1 asserts that the above defendant has a settlement claim of KRW 42,180,90, which is equivalent to the difference between the previous right price and the sale price of the right to purchase against the non-party partnership, and that this claim is offset against the same amount as the purchase price claim of the state-owned or public land acquired by the plaintiff

According to each of the above defendant's statements, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 3-6, and Eul evidence 3-6, 12, the previous value of the right owned by the defendant 1 (the value of the previous land and building) was assessed to 190,241,900 won, and according to the first management and disposal plan of this case, the above defendant's price of the apartment unit is increased to 148,061,000 won (the value of the apartment unit is increased to 150,835,000 won according to the second management and disposal plan). Although there is no counter-proof, the above defendant's liquidation amount is calculated to be the difference between the previous value of the right and the sale right value by the proportion stipulated in the previous management and disposal plan of this case, it cannot be deemed that the simple difference between the previous value of the right and the sale right value cannot be deemed as the liquidation amount as alleged above, and the above defendant's above defendant cannot be deemed as holding the claim against the non-party union as the above claim 454 (the sale price of this case).

H. Sub-committee

(1) Defendant 1 is 6.4% of the total amount of 6.4,44,438 and 40.40% of the total amount of 2.5% of the total amount of 2.5% of the total amount of 40.5% of the total amount of 2.6% of the total amount of 40.5% of the total amount of 40.5% of the total amount of 20.6% of the total amount of 45% of the total amount of 40.5% of the total amount of 2.6% of the total amount of 40.5% of the total amount of 40.6% of the total amount of 5% of the total amount of 40.6% of the total amount of 16.4% of the total amount of 20.6% of the total amount of 40% of the total amount of 40.6% of the total amount of 9% of the total amount of 16.4% of the total amount of 20.6% of the total amount

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) In order to secure the obligation to be borne by the said Defendants against the Plaintiff between Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, the Plaintiff concluded each contract to establish a mortgage on the previous land and buildings owned by the said Defendants as the obligor and completed each registration of establishment of a mortgage on the following occasions.

Defendant 1: 78,00,000 won with maximum debt amount on June 17, 1997

Defendant 2: 39,00,000 won with maximum debt amount on October 31, 1994

Defendant 3: 20,000,000 won with maximum debt amount on December 23, 1993

May 20, 1994 19,000,000 won with maximum debt amount

Defendant 4: 52,00,000 won with maximum debt amount on June 1, 1994

on July 11, 1994 the maximum debt amount of 13,000,000 won

Each contract to establish a mortgage mentioned the purport that the obligor guarantees all obligations that are or will be borne by the obligee within the scope of the maximum amount of debt.

(2) On November 8, 2003, after the Plaintiff completed the construction of the instant apartment, etc. and completed the completion inspection, the sale disposition based on the management and disposal plan was conducted on November 8, 2003, and the Defendants, who acquired ownership of each of the instant apartment units upon the public notice of the sale disposition, completed each registration of preservation of ownership pursuant thereto on March 18, 2004. At the same time, with respect to each apartment unit listed in the attached list No. 1 owned by the said Defendants, each registration of creation of a mortgage, such as the written claim for the counterclaim, was completed based on the previous

B. The defendants' assertion

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 registered the establishment of a new mortgage in the future of the plaintiff in order to guarantee the loan obligation to move expenses to the plaintiff on each apartment of this case owned by the above defendants. The defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 claimed the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage on the ground that the aforementioned defendants' obligation to move to the plaintiff was extinguished

C. Determination

(1) Scope of secured debt

First of all, the scope of the secured obligation of this case is examined as to the scope of the secured obligation of a financial institution, etc., and as it is a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, it should be interpreted in principle as the terms of the contract. However, in the case of a contract which is uniformly printed and used by a financial institution, etc. in the form of a general transaction agreement, the scope of the secured obligation of this case is stated in the contract clause that all the obligations of this case or obligations arising out of other causes, other than the loan extended by the establishment of the secured obligation, are comprehensively included in the scope of the secured obligation of this case, even if the contract clause stated that the scope of the secured obligation of this case and the existing obligation are comprehensively included in addition to the loan obligation of this case, and the relationship between the maximum debt amount of the secured obligation and the existing obligation, etc., if interpreting the scope of the secured obligation in accordance with the printed contract terms, it would rather be contrary to the general loan relationship of the financial institution, etc., and it is reasonable to interpret the parties' intent as the secured obligation of the secured obligation of this case.

In this case, in order to guarantee the moving expenses of the union members who receive the moving expenses between the plaintiff and the non-party association, the non-party association shall set the right to collateral security with the plaintiff as the first mortgagee, and 130% of the leased moving expenses as the maximum moving expenses. In the case of the defendant 1, the loan and the maximum moving amount shall be 60,000 won, respectively, and 78,000,000 won in the case of the defendant 2 and 30,000 won, and 50,00,000,000 won in the case of the defendant 4, and 65,000,000,000 won in the case of the above loan and the defendants were to be transferred to the plaintiff as the collateral security right at the time of the above transfer expenses. Thus, if the plaintiff did not set the maximum moving expenses between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 as the collateral security right to the above land and the defendants, it should be interpreted as 30% of the loan amount.

(2) Whether the secured obligation exists

Furthermore, as seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize that the above Defendants paid the moving expenses in full, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above Defendants paid the expenses. Rather, as to the moving expenses lent by the above Defendants to the above Defendants, Defendant 1 and the amount of funds paid by the above Defendants to the Plaintiff was appropriated for the sale price, the amount of funds paid by the above Defendants to the Plaintiff, the principal moving expenses, the principal moving expenses, the amount of KRW 30 million, the principal moving expenses, and Defendant 3, the principal moving expenses, and Defendant 4, the principal moving expenses in the Plaintiff’s name, and the remainder of Defendant 1, 3, and 4, the principal moving expenses, the principal of which are KRW 170,000,000,000, the remainder of the principal and the remainder of the principal and the compensation for delay as stated in each of the above facts.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate No. 2 listed in the attached Table No. 1-B of this Decree. Thus, Defendant 2's counterclaim assertion is reasonable, and the remainder of Defendant 1, 3, and 4's counterclaim assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. The defendant 2's claim of the counterclaim shall be accepted as reasonable, and the defendant 1, 3, and 4's claim of the counterclaim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the first instance court is unfair with some different conclusions as to the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court of first instance as to the modification of the judgment as per Disposition 1.

[Attachment List]

Judges in the appellate trial (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-soo