Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Definition, Attorneys Kang Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

tension Village Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (Attorney Jeong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

May 28, 2015

1. The defendant,

(a) Of KRW 863,423,059 and the aforementioned money, KRW 507,923,059: (a) with respect to KRW 355,50,000 from July 31, 2014 to July 2, 2015; (b) 5% per annum from January 6, 2015 to July 2, 2015; and (c) 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment;

B. Of KRW 613,248,091 and the aforementioned money, 351,048,091 won to Plaintiff 2 shall be 5% per annum from July 31, 2014; 262,200,000 won per annum from November 26, 2014 to July 2, 2015; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

sub-payment.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 30% is assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 1,135,158,250 won to the plaintiff 1 and 888,818,250 won per annum from December 21, 2012 to June 30, 2014; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 5% per annum from December 21, 2012 to May 6, 2015 to the date of full payment; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 813,710,650 won per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; 813,650 won per annum; 65,695,650 won per annum to the date of full payment; 20% per annum from the next day to 205% per annum to the date of full payment; 15% per annum from 2015 to the date of full payment; 20.5% per annum

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant obtained authorization for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project association established to implement a housing reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant project”) in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted) 31,668 square meters, and the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 1, 2007.

B. The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government approved the implementation of the project in this case on October 31, 2007 (Notice No. 2007-76 of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government) and the implementation of the project in this case three times thereafter, and approved the management and disposal plan on January 23, 2008 (Notice No. 2008-8 of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Notice No. 2008-8), and the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government revised each management and disposal plan on December 20, 2013 and January 6, 2014.

C. As the Defendant’s members, Plaintiff 1 owned the land and buildings listed in No. 1 in the annexed real estate list No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the land listed in No. 2 in the annexed table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building (hereinafter “instant two buildings”) within the instant project zone (each of the above buildings was destroyed on Oct. 2, 2008; hereinafter “each of the above buildings was destroyed on Oct. 2, 2008”; hereinafter “each of the above buildings” and “each of the above buildings” collectively; and each of the instant land and buildings collectively referred to as “instant real estate”).

D. On November 19, 2007, Plaintiff 2 completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the trust as of November 19, 2007 with respect to the instant two land and two buildings. Plaintiff 1 completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the trust as of November 19, 2007 with respect to the instant one land and one building to the Defendant on April 29, 2008, and the Plaintiffs delivered each of the instant real estate to the Defendant around the date of each trust registration.

E. On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiffs submitted an application for parcelling-out to the Defendant on December 20, 2012, within the period of application for parcelling-out (from November 1, 2012 to December 20, 2012).

F. From January 23, 2014 to January 26, 2014, the Defendant publicly announced the period as the period for concluding a contract for the sale of goods by a cooperative member, but temporarily postponed the said period, and then again publicly announced the period from February 28, 2014 to March 2, 2014.

G. On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiffs: (a) withdrawn the application for parcelling-out from the Defendant (a written notice is stated as cancellation; (b) appears to be the meaning of withdrawal); (c) sent each written notice that the contract for parcelling-out was not concluded from January 23, 2014 to January 26, 2014, the period for concluding the contract for parcelling-out; and (d) sent each written notice that changed cash settlement by content-certified mail; and (e) did not conclude the contract for parcelling-out within the period for signing the contract (from February 28, 2014 to March 2, 2014).

H. On April 28, 2014, the Defendant sent each written notification to the Plaintiffs, stating that the Plaintiffs did not conclude a sales contract by March 2, 2014, which is the expiration date of the sales contract, and became a cash clearing subject and the cost burden, such as project costs, may occur. As such, the Defendant may prevent losses from the failure to conclude a sales contract by May 9, 2014, by concluding a sales contract by May 9, 2014.

[Based on Recognition] A’s without dispute, A’s evidence 1-2, A’s evidence 2-1, 3-1, 4-1 through 4, A’s evidence 6-1 through 3, A’s evidence 7-2, 3, A’s evidence 8-1, 2, 9-1, 9-2, 1-1, 2, and 1-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs shall increase the rate of application for parcelling-out even if they did not intend to apply for parcelling-out, but submit a formal application only, and make an application for parcelling-out against their will in cash under the same conditions as the applicant for parcelling-out. Since the plaintiffs have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out thereafter, the plaintiffs have the duty to pay the liquidation money and delay damages for the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs as well as the settlement money for the real estate of this case.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) Claim on the base date for cash settlement

Since the plaintiffs were applied for parcelling-out, but they did not conclude a contract for parcelling-out, they shall make a cash settlement on March 3, 2014, which is the date following the expiration date of the contract for parcelling-out.

2) Reasons for deduction of project costs

Since the Plaintiffs are obligated to share project costs until they lose membership in accordance with the provisions of the Defendant’s Articles of Incorporation, the project cost contributions calculated according to the ratio of the appraised value of the previous assets to the total project cost of the Defendant Union that was disbursed by March 2, 2014, the day immediately before the date of cash settlement should be deducted

3) Interest on moving expenses loans, deduction claims, etc.

The defendant paid interest on the moving expenses loan that the plaintiffs received from the financial institution on behalf of the plaintiffs, and as long as the plaintiffs lose their membership, the defendant's obligation to return the interest on the moving expenses loan that the defendant paid to the defendant to the defendant, the amount equivalent to the moving expenses interest shall be deducted from the liquidation amount

(4) The assertion for refusal to pay damages for delay

The plaintiffs' obligation to cancel the right to collateral security established on the real estate of this case and the defendant's obligation to pay liquidation money are simultaneously performed, and the defendant may refuse to pay liquidation money until the right to collateral security is cancelled from the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant has no obligation to pay delay compensation for liquidation money

3. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant's articles of incorporation

The main contents of this case in the Defendant’s articles of incorporation are as follows:

(4) Members of an association shall have the rights and obligations falling under each of the following subparagraphs. 1. Rights to request the attendance of the general meeting and the right to select and sell the land or buildings; 3. Rights to elect representatives and right to do so; 5. Obligations to pay expenses, such as maintenance project expenses, liquidation money, late payment charges and losses (including delay of contract, delay of dispute between association members). 7. Other Acts and subordinate statutes, this Act, the articles of association, and the articles of association, etc. (1) An association may impose and collect expenses incurred in housing projects (hereinafter referred to as "maintenance project expenses") such as construction expenses, etc. from the date on which it has withdrawn the contract for sale in cash; 2. Rights to request the association to relocate members of an association which have not concluded the contract for sale in cash after deducting the expenses for relocation of the association members from the date on which it has failed to do so; 3. Rights to request the association to provide the head of a Si/Gun with the improvement project within the extent of 4. The association may impose the expenses for relocation project within the extent of each project implementation plan by comprehensively taking account of the location and size of the land:

B. Meanwhile, Article 44(5) of the Defendant’s above Articles of incorporation stipulated that “a partner shall conclude a sales contract within 60 days from the date of notification of the management and disposal plan after the date of the sales contract, and the provisions of paragraph (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis where the sales contract is not concluded.” However, the above amendment was made upon the resolution of the general meeting of the general meeting of the Housing Reconstruction Association of Korea on May 16, 2013, and the amended articles of incorporation was authorized by the head of Gangdong-gu on July 17, 2013.

C. On October 28, 2007, the Defendant concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “City”) and the construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). The main contents are as follows.

6. Contract amount: 6. Housing reconstruction project contract for tension included in the main sentence: 84,629,181,283 of the construction contract for the village reconstruction project: (1) The relocation expenses of the defendant's association members and the defendant's business expenses may be leased to the defendant's and the defendant's association members; in such cases, the defendant and the defendant's association members shall reimburse the principal and interest pursuant to the provisions of Articles 39 and 40: Provided, That the defendant and the Si Corporation may directly raise the relocation expenses and business expenses through the financial institution after consultation with the financial institution. (1) The construction contract amount to be paid by the defendant to the Si Corporation shall be the amount specified in paragraph (6) of the contract for housing reconstruction project for long-term villages. The construction cost shall be 907,193/m2,673/m283 of the construction cost, and the interest on the rent shall be paid to the defendant's association members within the limit of 989,865/m200,00 of the rental interest on the previous housing site (excluding relocation expenses).

D. Meanwhile, around November 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract to partially modify the instant construction contract with a contractor (hereinafter “instant modification contract”). The main contents are as follows.

Article 17 (Lending of Relocation Expenses, etc.) ① The defendant shall make a direct financing from the financial institution without guarantee of the Corporation from the financial institution selected in consultation with the Corporation on the basis of the amount of appraisal within the limit specified in the special terms and conditions of the contract for construction work according to the details of existing property rights. ② The interest on the basic relocation expenses under paragraph (1) shall be paid by the defendant not later than the date whichever comes earlier between the expiration date of the period for designating the occupancy of the defendant association members and the date of actual occupancy, and the interest on the additional relocation expenses shall be deposited by the defendant into the account designated by the lending financial institution every month from the relevant lending point of time, and the overdue

E. On April 29, 2008, with respect to the instant land and building 1, Plaintiff 1’s debt for moving expenses as collateral, and with respect to the instant land and building 426,600,000 won, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the instant one collateral mortgage”) with respect to the instant land and building 2 as collateral, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the instant two collateral mortgage”) with respect to the debt for moving expenses against Plaintiff 2 as collateral, and with respect to the instant land and building 2 as collateral, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “the instant two collateral mortgage”) with the maximum debt amount as KRW 314,640,000, was completed in the future of the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter “National Bank”).

F. On May 2, 2008, Plaintiff 1 borrowed KRW 355,500,000 for relocation expenses from a national bank, and Plaintiff 2 borrowed KRW 262,200,000 for the same day.

G. Interest on moving expenses to each of the Plaintiffs until November 2013 (from May 20, 2008 to December 20, 2013) was paid by the Si Corporation according to the instant construction contract. On January 8, 2014, after the instant change contract, the Si Corporation requested the Defendant to pay the interest on each of the above moving expenses loans paid by the Si Corporation in lieu thereof, and each of the moving expenses loans was paid by the Defendant after December 2013.

(h) The detailed details of interest rates on moving expenses paid by the contractor and the Defendant’s union from May 2, 2008 to July 21, 2014 are as follows:

I. The instant second collateral mortgage was cancelled on November 25, 2014, and the instant first collateral mortgage was cancelled on January 5, 2015, respectively, by having the Plaintiffs fully repaid their respective collateral obligations.

(j) On February 26, 2015, the Si Corporation transferred to the Defendant each claim for return of unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 92,347,928, and KRW 68,111,459, and notified each of the Plaintiffs on March 2, 2015.

(k) On the other hand, on August 21, 2014, the Defendant held an extraordinary general meeting and decided on the submission of a case for approval of the cost-bearing amount to be borne by a person subject to cash liquidation, which is an agenda item approved by its members, based on Articles 10(1)5 and 7 and 44(5) of the association’s articles of association, to determine the specific amount of the project cost to be borne by the person subject

(l) According to the Defendant’s management and disposal plan, the sum of the assessed value of the previous assets of all the land or buildings in the instant project zone is KRW 101,679,037,00,000, and the assessed value of the previous assets of the instant real estate as of November 2007, which was before the instant building is destroyed is as follows.

Plaintiff 14-94,818,250,00 (4,010,000 square meters) shall be the appraised value of land of KRW 874,638,250, the appraised value of land of KRW 79.34 of the building area of KRW 79.34 of the building area (4,010,000/ square meters) located in the main sentence of this Article, and the appraised value of KRW 637,975,00 (3,75,000/ square meters) of the appraised value of KRW 65,695,695,650 of the land area of KRW 1693 and KRW 637,975,00 of the appraised value of KRW 17,720,650 (224,000/ square meters) of the appraised value of the building area of KRW 79.11,79,650 (224,000/ square meters)

(m) The rearrangement project cost incurred by the Defendant Union by March 3, 2014 is as listed below, and the total amount is 30,456,104,640 won.

A person shall be appointed.

(n) According to the court’s entrustment of appraisal with Nonparty 2, the appraised value of the instant land as of March 3, 2014 is KRW 1,120,520,000, and the appraised value of the instant land as of March 3, 2014 is KRW 795,990,000 (each of the instant buildings was destroyed and lost, thus failing to conduct appraisal).

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, evidence Nos. 1-2, 10-1, 2, 10-2, 11, 21-1, 21-1, 21-2, 24 of A, 2, 2, 5 through 14 of Eul, 15-2 of Eul, 16-1, 2, 18, 19, 20-1, 21-2 of Eul, 21-1, 21-2 of this court's appraisal commission to non-party 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

4. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) Occurrence of obligation to pay settlement money

According to the above facts, the plaintiffs did not enter into a contract for parcelling-out within the period for concluding a contract for parcelling-out, thereby losing the status of the defendant's union members and becoming a person subject to cash settlement pursuant to Article 44 (5) of the defendant's articles of incorporation. Thus, the defendant has a duty to pay the liquidation money for the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs, and the above obligation to pay the liquidation money occurred on March 3, 2014, following the expiration

The plaintiffs asserted that the declaration of intent to apply for parcelling-out has no effect as it goes against the plaintiffs' genuine intent, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a defect that can deny the validity of the declaration of intent to apply for parcelling-out. Further, although the plaintiffs have withdrawn the application for parcelling-out, they argue that the following day after the expiration date of the period for application for parcelling-out is a cash liquidation date, the "person who has withdrawn the parcelling-out" under Article 47 (1) of the Urban Improvement Act refers to the person who has voluntarily withdrawn it before the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, and the person who voluntarily voluntarily voluntarily withdrawn the application after the expiration of the period for parcelling-out shall not be included in the application for parcelling-out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du4293, Aug. 26, 2014). This part of the plaintiffs' assertion is not accepted, since the "person who voluntarily withdrawn the application for parcelling-out" under

2) Amount of settlement money

In a lawsuit seeking the payment of liquidation money, the court shall not necessarily evaluate the liquidation amount by the market price appraisal and may assess the liquidation amount by an appropriate method (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da47469, 47476, 47483, May 10, 2012, etc.).

The fact that the appraised value of the instant land as of March 3, 2014, as of March 3, 2014, caused by the duty to pay liquidation money, was KRW 1,120,520,00, and the appraised value of the instant two land was KRW 795,90,00,00 as of March 2, 201. At that time, the value of the instant one building was KRW 14,638,250, and the value of the instant two buildings was 17,720,650, and there is no dispute between the parties, and thus, the liquidation amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs is KRW 1,135,158,250 (=1,120,520,000 + KRW 14,638,250,000) and KRW 813,650,95,90,070,07).

3) Sub-committee

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay to Plaintiff 1 from July 31, 2014 when 150 days have elapsed since March 3, 2014 when the obligation to pay settlement money was created with respect to Plaintiff 2, and each of the said payments (Article 47(1) of the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (Amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013); however, as the grounds for liquidation arose from July 31, 2014 when 150 days have elapsed from the date of the occurrence of the grounds for liquidation; the amended Act provides that damages for delay shall be paid in cash within the scope of 90 days from the date following the date of obtaining authorization of the management and disposal plan; however, the period corresponding to the amended Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 12116, Dec. 24, 2013).

B. Determination on the grounds for the deduction of project costs

1) Article 60(1) of the Urban Improvement Act provides that a project implementer shall bear the cost of a rearrangement project, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the Urban Improvement Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes. Article 61(1) and (3) of the same Act provides that a project implementer may impose and collect the difference between the cost of the rearrangement project and the income accrued in the course of implementing the rearrangement project from the owners of the land, etc. as a charge, and the matters necessary therefor shall be determined by the articles of incorporation

In addition to the above provisions, in light of the structure and contents of the Act on Urban Improvement, which regulates both housing redevelopment projects and housing reconstruction projects without distinguishing them from those stipulated differently in light of the characteristics of housing redevelopment projects or housing reconstruction projects (Article 39 of the Act on Urban Improvement of Land, Infrastructure and Transport), a cooperative, which is a project implementer in a housing redevelopment project or housing reconstruction project, may impose and collect the difference between the income accrued in the course of implementing a rearrangement project and a rearrangement project under Article 61(1) of the Act on Urban Improvement of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, from the association members, including the land, etc.; however, if a cooperative member becomes a person subject to cash settlement, the cooperative is unable to impose and collect surcharges under Article 61(1) of the Act on Urban Improvement of Land, Infrastructure and Transport because it is no longer in the status of the cooperative member, and the cooperative may seek the refund of a certain portion of the rearrangement project costs of the cooperative, which occurred before the person subject to cash settlement loses its membership, only the association’s articles of association, resolution at its general meeting, or an agreement between the cooperative members (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du164.

2) Article 44(5) of the Defendant’s Articles of incorporation provides that a person subject to cash settlement shall pay settlement money by deducting business expenses incurred during the period of cash settlement, and the above Articles of incorporation was amended by a resolution of the general meeting of partnership on May 16, 2013, and obtained authorization for revision on July 17, 2013. The above Articles of incorporation becomes effective when approval for amendment of the articles of incorporation was obtained pursuant to Article 1 of the Addenda to the above Articles of incorporation. As such, there is a provision on the basis of the articles of incorporation that allows the Plaintiffs to share improvement project expenses incurred to the person subject to cash settlement until they lose their membership status until March 3, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for business expense deduction is well-grounded.

3) The project cost contributions to be deducted from liquidation money may be calculated by multiplying the total project cost disbursed until March 2, 2014, which is the day immediately preceding the base date for settlement of cash, by the individual apportionment ratio calculated according to the assessed value of the previous asset. Accordingly, the amount of the project cost to be shared by Plaintiff 1 is 266,229,327 won [the total project cost to be shared by Plaintiff 1 = 30,456,104,640 won x 0.87414,640 won x 0.75% of the individual apportionment ratio according to the assessed value of the previous asset ± 888,818,250 won ±101,679,037,000 won ± 101,679,000 won ; hereinafter the same shall apply]. The amount of the project cost to be apportioned by Plaintiff 2 is 196,401,69,365 won ±646.65% of the previous appraised amount to be apportioned

C. Determination on moving expenses loans, interest deduction claims, etc.

(i) Obligation to return interest on moving expenses;

The legal relationship between a reconstruction maintenance project association and its partners established under the Urban Improvement Act is governed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of association, a resolution of a general meeting of partners, or an agreement between a union and its partners, and thus, unless otherwise stipulated by the relevant provisions or the agreement, it does not necessarily have an obligation to return retroactively the profits earned by a union member as a matter of course, even if a union member lost his/her membership (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da32850, 32867, Sept. 10, 200, etc.).

As seen earlier, according to Article 44(5)2 of the Articles of Incorporation, which applies to the Plaintiff by changing the period in which the Plaintiffs were maintaining their membership, the Defendant appears to be entitled to deduct the interest on the moving expenses incurred prior to the loss of their membership from the settlement money as “financial expenses, such as delayed interest.” However, the Plaintiffs performed their obligations as members, such as providing real estate for the purpose of implementing the Defendant’s project. However, the Plaintiffs’ failure to use and profit from real estate before receiving the settlement money, on the other hand, lose their membership status, making it impossible to gain profits from the partnership’s business. ② The Defendant could promptly proceed with the business due to the transfer of the instant real estate and completing the trust registration; ③ the Plaintiffs may be allowed to bear the project expenses incurred prior to the loss of their membership status pursuant to the provisions of the articles of incorporation established in advance. The project expenses are not only construction expenses, sales management expenses, moving expenses borne by the Defendant, but also financial expenses, such as the Defendant’s relocation expenses and project expenses, and thus, it is reasonable to impose the Plaintiffs’ unjust burden on the Plaintiffs in light of equity interest accrued from the above.

However, even if the plaintiffs cannot be obliged to return the interest equivalent to the interest on the moving expenses that they acquired as the members of the association retroactively to the interest on the moving expenses, in light of the following: ① the burden that the defendant union bears on behalf of the plaintiffs on behalf of the members of the association is interpreted as premised on the plaintiffs' status as the members of the association; ② If the plaintiffs are exempted from the interest on the moving expenses after the plaintiffs lost their status as the members of the association, the interest would eventually be transferred to the defendant members; and ② if the plaintiffs are exempted from the interest on the moving expenses after they lose their status as the members of the association, it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiffs can hold the interest on the moving expenses only during the period in which they maintain their status as the members of the association; and it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs bear the interest from the time when they lose their status as the members of the association. Accordingly, the amount equivalent to the moving expenses interest borne by the defendant after March 3

2) Scope of the mutual aid

Since the plaintiffs lost their membership status on March 3, 2014, the defendant paid KRW 1,150,846 on March 20, 2014 + KRW 308.46 on 25, KRW 208, KRW 46 on 30, KRW 46 on 20, KRW 30, KRW 48.45 on 20, KRW 96 on 205, KRW 30, KRW 48.44 on 20, KRW 98, KRW 46 on 205, KRW 196 on 20, KRW 48.44 on 205, KRW 96 on 205, KRW 48.36 on 205, KRW 18.4 on 29, KRW 464 on 205, KRW 984 on 205, KRW 184 on 2014, KRW 18.45 on 2014

D. Judgment on the non-payment of damages for delay

1) Where a reconstruction association bears the duty to pay liquidation money to the owner of a plot of land, etc. who loses its membership pursuant to Article 47 of the Urban Improvement Act, the owner of land, etc., in principle, bears the duty to transfer ownership of land, etc. to the reconstruction association without limitation of rights, and the duty to pay liquidation money to the reconstruction association. However, where the owner of land, etc. has completed the registration of ownership transfer based on trust in the future of the reconstruction association as to the land, etc. owned by him/her, he/she does not bear the duty to separately transfer ownership for the purpose of receiving liquidation money, and where trust relationship has been completed due to the forfeiture of membership, it naturally reverts to the reconstruction association (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da19204, Sept. 9, 2010; 2012Da104777, 110484, Nov. 28, 2013; 2007Da108484, Jan. 28, 2013>

2) In addition, when a seller performs the duty of registration of ownership transfer while the establishment of a neighboring mortgage is completed, the buyer is at the same time liable to pay the seller the remainder after deducting the amount of the secured debt from the price, and when the seller performs the duty of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, the buyer is at the same time liable to pay the amount of the secured debt at the same time. If the seller fails to cancel the mortgage on the object of sale which the seller bears the duty of cancellation, the buyer may refuse the payment of the purchase price to the extent of the risk. As a result, the buyer is not liable to pay interest after the delivery of the unpaid price even if the buyer was delivered the object under the proviso of Article 587 of the Civil Act. In this case, the buyer is not at the amount equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the secured debt, but at the same time, the purchase price which the buyer refused to pay is limited to the confirmed debt amount (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da6554, May 10, 1996).

3) In the instant case, the fact that the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of trust in the future before receiving the settlement money is as seen earlier. In addition, in full view of the aforementioned evidence, the first collateral mortgage of this case was established for Plaintiff 1’s moving expenses loan on April 29, 2008, when the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of trust was completed for Plaintiff 1’s moving expenses, and the second collateral mortgage of this case was established for the moving expenses loan on April 29, 2007, when the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of trust was completed for Plaintiff 2’s moving expenses on the ground of the trust after November 19, 207. The second collateral mortgage of this case was established for the moving expenses loan by Plaintiff 2 on April 29, 2008, and the construction company or the Defendant paid the above moving expenses on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

In light of the above facts in light of the above legal principles, when the plaintiffs lose their membership, the ownership of each land of this case is finally attributed to the defendant due to the termination of trust relationship, and accordingly the plaintiffs are not obligated to separately transfer ownership of each land of this case to the defendant. However, the plaintiffs are obligated to cancel the registration of establishment of a new mortgage, and the plaintiffs' obligation to cancel the registration of establishment of a new mortgage and the obligation to pay liquidation amount is concurrently performed. In addition, in this case, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the moving expenses loan was made as part of the relocation measures as prescribed in Article 37 of the Articles of the defendant's articles of incorporation, the defendant's refusal of payment of liquidation amount is limited to the extent corresponding to the actual secured debt of the right to collateral security.

Therefore, the defendant may refuse the payment of liquidation money on the ground that there is a simultaneous performance relationship only to the extent corresponding to the actual amount of the secured debt of each of the respective secured claims before cancellation of the respective secured claims. The defendant cannot refuse the payment of liquidation money for the remaining liquidation money. With respect to the plaintiff 1 until January 5, 2015 when the first secured collateral mortgage was cancelled, no delay damages for the amount of KRW 355,000,000 shall accrue, and with respect to the plaintiff 2 until November 25, 2014 when the second secured collateral mortgage was cancelled, no delay damages for the amount of KRW 262,200,000 shall accrue, and with respect to each of the remaining liquidation money, damages for delay shall accrue from March 3, 2014 after the lapse of 150 days from March 31, 2014. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is with merit within the scope of recognition as above.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant: (i) 863,423,059 won (=26,229,327 - 5,423,864 won); (ii) 507,923,059 won out of the liquidation money; (iii) 200 days following the date of liquidation; (iv) 150 days following the date of 20 days following the date of 150 days following the date of 20; (v) 360 days following the date of 20 days following the date of 30 days following the date of 150; (v) 20 days following the date of 20 days following the date of 20 days following the date of 30 days following the date of 30 days following the date of 150; and (v) 36 days following the date of 20 days following the date of 20 days following the date of 36 days following the date of 20 days following the date of 15 days following the date of 20.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiffs is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Park So-young (Presiding Judge)