The Plaintiff is an implementer of the National Rental Housing Complex Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”) in Gunpo-gu, Songpo-gu, Songpo-gu, the implementation plan for the national rental housing complex development of which was approved by the National Rental Housing Complex Development Implementation Plan for the National Rental Housing Complex Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project,” and the Militarypo-gu, the Militarypo-si project district (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project district”).

On May 7, 2010, the project was converted into a Bogeumjari Housing District on May 7, 2010, and the project was converted into a public housing zone on June 16, 2014.

On November 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to have a free consultation on the land listed in the attached Table 1 attached hereto (hereinafter “each land of this case”) owned by the Defendant in the instant project district, but the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for free reversion consultation.

On May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Korea Asset Management Corporation entrusted with the business of managing and disposing of each land of this case with the Defendant on the purchase of each land of this case in total of KRW 355,846,940, and paid the Korea Asset Management Corporation KRW 355,846,940 on the same day. On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of each land of this case on July 6, 2017, on the acquisition of public land consultation.

[Ground for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings and records as to the facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings is that each of the instant land constitutes “previous public facilities” as prescribed by Article 65(1) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “National Land Planning Act”), and thus, should be reverted to the Plaintiff, a project executor, free of charge.

In doing so, the defendant did not comply with the procedures for consultation on gratuitous attribution and the plaintiff paid the purchase price for the above part of the acquisition area to the defendants who intend to comply with the business schedule. Accordingly, the defendant did not have any justifiable reason.