Representative ○○○○

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9. J;

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

From the Plaintiff, Defendant C shall receive KRW 810, 973, 700 from the Plaintiff, and Defendant H shall receive KRW 1,089, 822, and 030 from the Plaintiff; at the same time, the Plaintiff shall perform each of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer arising from sale on December 4, 2010 with respect to each of the relevant real estate listed in the Schedule No. 2, and deliver each of the relevant real estate.

2. All remaining Defendants’ appeals are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The Defendants shall receive from the Plaintiff each corresponding amount stated in the sale price column in the attached Table 2. List, as the same.

on December 4, 2010, with respect to each of the pertinent real property indicated in the column for real estate in the same Schedule to the Plaintiff.

each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cause, and delivery of each of the relevant real property (the plaintiff)

to make a claim for ownership transfer registration, etc. in the court for the payment of purchase price;

As to Defendant C and H, the maximum amount of debt regarding each of the real estates at the market price shall be the maximum amount of debt regarding each such real estate.

Defendant C and H seek ownership transfer registration, etc. with the remaining amount after deduction.

in the court of first instance, the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the purport of the claim in the redemption amount and the trial recognized by the court of first instance

to the extent of the difference between the amount to be paid, the incidental appeal shall be considered to be the purport of the incidental appeal).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. The Defendants are assessed against the Plaintiff and the assessed amount in the attached Table 2.

the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of each corresponding amount set forth in the section of this title, and each of the indications in the section of the same title

On May 3, 2012, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for sale of real estate is implemented respectively.

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project association established in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter referred to as the "Do Government Act") to carry out a housing reconstruction project of 277-24 Seoul ○○○-dong, Seoul ○○○-dong, 200 (hereinafter referred to as "the reconstruction project of this case") and approved by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○○-gu on June 23, 2008.

B. Within the instant reconstruction project zone, the Defendants are the owners of each of the pertinent land and buildings indicated in the real estate column in the attached Table 2. List, and are the Plaintiff’s members who agreed to the reconstruction of the instant case.

C. On July 14, 2010, the Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from October 7, 2010 to November 15, 2010 by the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○○○○, and received an additional application for parcelling-out from the Plaintiff’s members to the Plaintiff’s members from November 15, 2010, and extended the period for application for parcelling-out from November 19, 201 to December 3, 2010 (the Plaintiff received the application for parcelling-out as above).

D. However, the Defendants did not apply for parcelling-out until December 3, 2010, which is the expiration date of the above period for application for parcelling-out.

E. The market price assessed as of December 4, 2010 in the column of real estate in the table Nos. 2. owned by the Defendants is the same as the amount corresponding to each of the items in the column of the purchase price in the table No. 2. The market price assessed as of December 4, 2012.

3. The amount assessed on the basis of the standards shall be the same as the amount corresponding to the evaluation column in the same Table.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Gap evidence 5 (including branch numbers), Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, the result of the appraisal by the first instance court appraiser ○○○○, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Article 47 of the Do Government Act merely provides for the obligation of cash settlement to the owners of land, etc. who do not apply for parcelling-out (hereinafter referred to as "owners of land, etc."), and Article 47 of the Do Government Act merely provides for the obligation of cash settlement to the owners of land, etc. who do not apply for parcelling-out (hereinafter referred to as "persons subject to cash settlement"), and Article 20 of the Do Government Act cannot immediately apply for the registration of ownership transfer to the persons subject to cash settlement on the basis of the above provision (see Article 38 of the Do Government Act), and Article 39 of the Do Government Act does not, in principle, apply to the reconstruction association which is the project implementer's right to expropriate the real estate within the rearrangement zone (see Article 38 of the Do Government Act) and Article 38 of the Do Government Act against those who agreed to establish an association. However, since 200 days after the date of application for parcelling-out or the date of expiration of the 20-out period, it shall also be deemed that they have the obligation to sell the land.

23. Supreme Court Decision 2010Da73215 Decided January 2, 201

2) In light of the above facts and the above legal principles, since the Defendants failed to apply for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff within the period of application for parcelling-out and the Defendants, they should be deemed to have concluded a sales contract on each relevant real estate listed in the attached Form 2, attached hereto, owned by the Defendants, on December 4, 2010, following the expiration date of the period of application for parcelling-out. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer for each relevant real estate on December 4, 2010 and deliver each relevant real estate to the Plaintiff

B. On the other hand, in cases where a project implementer fails to apply for a parcelling-out or withdraws an application for a parcelling-out under Article 47 of the Do Government Act, the owner of land, etc. under the principle of fairness bears the obligation to transfer the ownership of land, etc. to the project implementer in a state where there is no restriction on rights, and in principle, the obligation to transfer the ownership without such restriction on rights and the obligation of the project implementer to pay the liquidation amount are in the simultaneous performance relationship (Supreme Court Decision 2008.)

10.9. In the absence of any special agreement in a real estate sales contract, the buyer is likely to obtain full transfer of ownership due to the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the real estate concerned, unless there is a special agreement in the real estate sales contract, the buyer shall obtain full transfer of ownership until the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security is completed.

A reasonable payment may be refused (Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1029 Decided September 27, 198). 2) The assessed market value calculated as of December 4, 2010 with respect to each of the pertinent real estate owned by the Defendants is as shown in the market value column of attached Table 2. According to each of the records stated in evidence Nos. 5-4, 5, 15, and 16, regarding real estate owned by the Defendant C, the maximum debt amount of KRW 108,00,00, 120,000, and 120,000, and 120,000, and the remaining Defendants except the Defendant C and H are set up against the Plaintiff; the amount corresponding to the purchase price column of the said Table; the amount calculated as of December 4, 2010; the amount calculated as of each of the above maximum debt amounts stated in the market value column of attached Table No. 2; the amount of KRW 30,000,309,79, 2097, 2008,

On December 4, 2010, each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale has a duty to deliver each of the relevant real estate.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defenses, etc.

A. The defendants' assertion

After the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out, the Defendants asserted that the implementation plan of the reconstruction project of this case was modified due to the amendment of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor's improvement plan and the increase in the floor area of the apartment building to be constructed, and that the modification of the management and disposal plan is expected to be made. In the event there is an inevitable invalidity in the project implementation plan, the owners of land, etc. who already failed to apply for parcelling-out within the period for parcelling-out or lost the status of members under Article 47 of the Do administration and the articles of association by withdrawing the application for parcelling-out shall also be entitled to purchase the buildings, etc. by applying for parcelling-out according to the new public announcement of the period for application for parcelling-out (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du18342, Dec. 8, 2011). Accordingly, in this case, the modified project plan should be determined as the purchase price stated in the column of attached Table 2. The changed project plan as of December 4, 2010.

As to this, the Plaintiff did not legally apply for a parcelling-out by the Defendants and did not apply for a parcelling-out on December 4, 2010.

Inasmuch as the conclusion of a sales contract on each of the instant real estate is deemed based on the premise that the Defendants were disqualified from membership, the Defendants asserted that the evaluation base date of the sales price should also be December 4, 2010.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff obtained the approval of the project implementation plan for the instant reconstruction project on July 14, 201. The head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 3) pursuant to Article 4(4) of the Do administration plan to revise the project implementation plan for the instant reconstruction project on September 14, 201 and publicly notify the same date on the same date.

6.8. Conditional Consent Order was issued.

5) On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff obtained a project implementation change authorization with the purport that the number of union members subject to consent from 202 members to 211 members, the building-to-land ratio from 79% to 24.49%, the floor area ratio from 249.96% to 299.66%, the total number of 370 households to 464 households, and the total number of 16% from 370 households, respectively. 16) granted the Plaintiff an opportunity for applying for re-sale to union members from March 25, 2013 to April 24 of the same year, and also granted the Defendants who already lost their membership an opportunity to apply for re-sale on the premise of submission of the written consent to join the association.

The Plaintiff extended the period of filing an application for re-sale by May 8, 2013, but the Defendants did not submit a written consent to joining the association and apply for parcelling-out with the lapse of the extended period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 8, 9, 10, 11, Eul evidence 1 and 5 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

The key issue of this case is whether the Defendants recover their membership by retroactively terminating the validity of public announcement of application for parcelling-out under the public announcement of the initial project implementation plan for the reconstruction project implemented by the Plaintiff, determination of persons subject to cash settlement arising from the Do for the application period for parcelling-out, legal fiction of sales contract, and loss of membership.

The above Supreme Court Decision 2008Da18342 cited by the Defendants as the grounds for the application for parcelling-out is to be applied to the case where the approval of the preceding project execution plan is null and void as the approval of the preceding project execution plan is obtained again and the application for parcelling-out is made from the beginning. On the other hand, in this case, it cannot be deemed that there is a defect of invalidity per annum in the approval of the first project execution plan. ② In the case of the reconstruction project of this case, the application for parcelling-out is announced under the premise of the approval of the project execution on July 14, 2010, and the Defendants did not apply for parcelling-out until the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out.

The Defendants cannot be deemed to have recovered the membership status of the association members retroactively, and the Defendants cannot be deemed to have recovered the status of the association members of the improvement project based on the project implementation plan, such as the announcement of the application for parcelling-out and the conclusion of the contract for parcelling-out (Article 32 of the Do Government Act). Although it is difficult to deny the validity of the determination of the object of cash settlement, the legal fiction of a sales contract and the loss of membership following the expiration of the period for application for parcelling-out under the premise that there is no ground for invalidation or revocation thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du25107, Oct. 25, 2012). The Defendants cannot be deemed to have recovered the status of the association members of the improvement project, even if the competent authority approves the project implementation plan, in addition to the announcement of the application for parcelling-out and the conclusion of the contract for parcelling-out, if necessary to implement the improvement project within the rearrangement zone, the land, etc. can be expropriated or used, and the Defendants cannot be deemed to have recovered the legal opportunity for re-out project.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the part against the defendant C and H in the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion. Thus, the part against the above defendants in the judgment of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's incidental appeal is modified as above, and the remaining defendants' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jong-chul

Judges chroned