2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 10, 2008, the Do governor of Chungcheongnam-do announced the development plan for the B urban development project with the area of 322,512 square meters of Mawon E in Busan-si, Asan-si, as a project executor, and designated Defendant B Urban Development Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) which was approved on June 16, 2009 as the project executor of the instant project.

B. On December 30, 2011, the Asan City approved the land substitution plan for the Defendant Union, and the Defendant Union announced the land substitution plan for the instant project area as F of the Asan City announcement on January 11, 2012.

C. The Defendant Cooperative, as owned by the Plaintiff, designated the G-si G-si 22 square meters, H 58 square meters, I 17 square meters, J 3 square meters (hereinafter “previous land”) within the urban development zone, and the K 146 square meters as a easing lane outside the urban development zone or the area outside the area.

In addition, the previous land is not subject to the land substitution but subject to the land settlement.

On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff responded to the purchase by consultation on the above K land of the Defendant Union, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant Union was completed on March 22, 2016.

E. After completing the construction of the instant project, on February 6, 2017, the Defendant Cooperative imposed a disposition of replotting of the previous land on the same land as Lando 288.5 square meters, and imposed a disposition of liquidation amount of KRW 56,138,30,00 as liquidation money for the excessive area of KRW 86.4 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's land owned by the plaintiff does not fall under the area excessively owned from the beginning, and thus, the plaintiff's association was subject to monetary settlement, while the evaluation of the previous land was low, the evaluation of the substitute land was high, and the plaintiff would be entitled to free land substitution if the plaintiff consented to purchase by consultation.