1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Matters to be explained by the court on the facts of recognition and the parties’ assertion on this part are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the fact that “the dissolution of a cooperative is caused by dissolution or withdrawal of a cooperative” in Article 4 of the

2. Determination

A. As to the claim for agreed amount, Article 6 of the instant agreement provides that land purchase and sale is made in installments under the agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, taking into account the progress of development and current status, and Paragraph 7 of the said agreement provides that the amount invested by the Plaintiff shall be fully refunded on the date of the balance of land purchase and sale.

In light of the purpose of this case’s agreement and the contents of this case’s agreement, the “land trade” as referred to in paragraph (7) of the same Article shall be interpreted to mean the development and installment transaction of the part of the instant land subject to this case’s agreement.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 11, 2013 with respect to the land in this case on the sole basis of the statements in Gap evidence 3 through 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13 (including documentary evidence with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 11, 2014 in the K as a result of the "land sale" within the above meaning.

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, it is recognized that the land of this case was determined to pay the balance within two months after the completion of the factory under the land sales contract prepared at the time when the transfer registration of ownership was completed in I. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the factory was completed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the sale of the land of this case had arrived.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted, since the grounds for return of investment funds under Article 7 of the instant agreement have occurred.

(b).