1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except in the case where "the plaintiff" in Part 15 of the Table 4 of the judgment of the first instance is used as "the association of this case"; and (b) it refers to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance.

2. On December 4, 2002, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion made an agreement to pay interest of KRW 100,000,000 per annum to the Plaintiff for the additional moving expenses (hereinafter “the instant additional moving expenses”). The Defendant exempted the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay interest by making a special agreement to pay the interest at a rate of 6% per annum to the Plaintiff, a service provider, who is not the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant additional moving expenses”).

In addition, on July 10, 2014, the Defendant agreed that the instant construction contract was concluded between the instant association and that “the Defendant will not claim the relocation expenses from 2003 to the time when the basic relocation expenses of this Article accrue” in the latter part of Article 15(5) of the instant contract regarding the relocation expenses. The instant additional relocation expenses loan constitutes “basic relocation expenses” as stipulated in the instant construction contract, and thus, the Defendant waived the interest claim on the instant additional relocation expenses to the Plaintiff like other members.

Not, however, a novels

Even if the defendant agreed that "the principal of the loan and the collection of interest shall be settled at the time of the payment of the Plaintiff's share to the union members after the sale of the general share," as of the time of the lease of the additional relocation expenses, the defendant agreed that "the rebuilding project of this case was not commenced at the time of the commencement of the construction due to the process of moving the union members, and therefore, the deadline for the obligation to settle interest under the above agreement

Nevertheless, the defendant on November 12, 2016.