손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the Plaintiff’s additional determination as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance under paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of Article
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the money that the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff, a cash liquidation, should be based on the market price, including development gains, and KRW 1,100,000,00 that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is not a half of the market price of the above real estate. As such, the judgment of the first instance, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff, who did not receive a reasonable compensation as above, had the right to receive a reasonable compensation under Articles 10 (Right of Happiness), 14 (Right of Residence and Transfer), 23 (Right of Property) of the Constitution, and the spirit of the Constitution, violates each of the above constitutional provisions, and the Plaintiff filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court as to the judgment of the first instance.
B. The market price as the purchase price pursuant to the claim for sale under the Urban Improvement Act refers to the objective transaction price of the land or building at the time when the right to claim sale was exercised, which includes the development gains expected to be accrued due to reconstruction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 2156, 21563, Mar. 26, 2009). However, the term “development gains” refers to the unrealizing profits at the time of the completion of the reconstruction project at the time of the completion of the reconstruction project; rather, it does not mean that the real market price of the reconstruction apartment formed through the real estate brokerage office should be deemed to have been reflected in the development gains (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da10881, Apr. 8, 2010). In the above lawsuit, the market price including the development gains at the time of the sale contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is deemed to have been established.