March 18, 2015

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

1. The Plaintiff: (a) with respect to the portion of 323/609 square meters out of 609 square meters in the school site in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul ( parcel number 8 omitted); (b) the Defendant (appointed party; hereinafter “Defendant”)’s entire share transfer registration completed on March 28, 2014 by the Seoul Western District Court No. 9910; (b) the appointed Nonparty 3’s total share transfer registration completed on April 10, 2014 by the court No. 11757; (c) the appointed Nonparty 4’s entire share transfer registration completed on May 7, 2014 by the court No. 14586; (d) the Plaintiff’s entire share transfer registration completed on May 20, 2014 by the court No. 1731; and (e) the Defendant’s receipt of the entire share transfer registration by the court No. 14516, Jun. 14, 2014;

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff is a school juristic person operating △△△△ University and owned land in the business site of a housing redevelopment project association located in △△△ District Housing Redevelopment and Rearrangement Project Association (hereinafter “Nonindicted Cooperative”) that removes the previous building and newly constructs apartment and neighborhood living facilities, etc. (hereinafter “instant redevelopment project”). The Defendant is a person who acquired ownership by winning a successful bid in the land owned by a non-party partnership during the compulsory auction procedure for real estate auction.

B. Sales contract between the plaintiff and the non-party partnership

On April 28, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased 2,00,000,000 the sales price from the non-party partnership, and the non-party partnership entered into a sales contract with the content that the Plaintiff would transfer full ownership that is not limited by provisional attachment, seizure, provisional disposition, or limited real right (hereinafter referred to as “the sales contract of this case”). The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the non-party partnership to the effect that the Plaintiff would transfer full ownership that is not limited by provisional attachment, provisional attachment, provisional disposition, or limited real right (hereinafter referred to as “the sales contract of this case”).

Of the land number, land category (number 2 omitted), size (number 9 omitted) of the land subject to the instant transaction contained in the main sentence of the attached Table contained in the attached Table in the main sentence, 41 (number 5 omitted) Between 113 and 122 (number 9 omitted), 53 (number 5 omitted) among 122 (number 3 omitted), 73 (number 11 omitted) among 164, 176 (number 4 omitted), 209 (number 12 omitted) to 4 (number 13 omitted) among 321 among 321 for the railroad land, 209 (number 12 omitted) to 16 (number 10 omitted), 36 (number 10 omitted) among 2,183, 609 among 7.7.183

C. Public notice of the transfer of the non-party partnership

1) On December 29, 2005, the non-party union publicly announced the details of the transfer of ownership of the site and building pursuant to Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) on July 21, 2006 (hereinafter “the transfer announcement of this case”).

2) Pursuant to the transfer announcement of this case, the land subject to the sale of this case was replaced with 609 square meters for school sites (number 8 omitted) (hereinafter “instant land”).

D. Acquisition of ownership in the procedure for compulsory auction by Defendant ○○○○

1) Meanwhile, the non-party partnership owned ① (number 14 omitted), ② 23 square meters for a railroad site (number 2 omitted), ② 113 square meters for a railroad site (number 15 omitted), ③ 2 square meters for a railroad site (number 16 omitted), ④ 42 square meters for a railroad site (number 3 omitted), ⑤ 321 square meters for a railroad site (number 4 omitted), ⑤ 321 square meters for a railroad site (number 4 omitted), ② 66.8 square meters for a railroad site (number 17 omitted), ② 19.8 square meters for a lot (number 18 omitted), (number 19.8 square meters), (number 19 omitted), and (number 132.2 square meters for a parcel (number 19 omitted), which was registered on November 29, 2004, and on August 29, 2008, the decision to commence the sale of the said parcel was made on August 28, 2008.

2) Of the land on the said nine parcels awarded a successful bid by Defendant ○○○○, the sum of three lots of land, including (number 2 omitted), (number 3 omitted), and (number 4 omitted), was 323 square meters in total (hereinafter “former three parcels of land”), which were included in the land subject to sale and purchase, and substituted the instant land.

E. Registration of ownership transfer of the instant land

1) On October 23, 2006, the non-party partnership completed the registration of ownership preservation on the land of this case in its name, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sales contract of this case in the future of the plaintiff on the same day.

2) After that, Defendant ○○○ filed an objection against the first instance court’s decision dismissing the objection on June 25, 2013 (this Court Decision 2013Ma505). Defendant ○○○○ filed an appeal against the first instance court’s decision on March 17, 2014; the appellate court revoked the first instance court’s decision on March 17, 2014, and entrusted Nonparty 323/609 of the ownership of the instant land to Nonparty ○○○ with the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of modification thereof. However, the above junior administrative officer, etc. entrusted Defendant ○○○ with the registration of ownership transfer on April 9, 2013 (the previous land of this case) and entrusted Defendant ○○○ with the registration of ownership transfer on March 17, 2014 (the ownership transfer of the instant land of this case) and entrusted the registration of ownership transfer to Nonparty 323/609 of the ownership of the instant land of this case to the lower court.

3) According to the above decision of the appellate court, with respect to the share of 323/609 of the instant land; Defendant ○○○○ was received on March 28, 2014 by this Court; Nonparty 3 was received on April 10, 2014 by Nonparty 11757; Nonparty 4 was appointed on May 7, 14586; Nonparty 3 was appointed on May 20, 17; Defendant 1731 was received on June 20, 1731; Defendant ○○○ was completed the entire share transfer registration on June 16, 203; Defendant ○○ completed the entire share transfer registration on April 1756.

(f) Note 1 of the relevant law

Urban Improvement Act

Article 54 (Public Announcement, etc. of Transfer)

(2) When a project operator intends to transfer the ownership of a site or building under paragraph (1), he/she shall publicly announce the details thereof in the official report of the relevant local government and report them to the head of the relevant Si/Gun. In such cases, a person who purchases a site or building shall acquire the ownership of the site or building on the day following

Article 55 (Confirmation of Rights to Sites and Structures)

(1) Where ownership is transferred to a person who purchases a building site or building pursuant to Article 54 (2), the rights registered, such as superficies, lease on a deposit basis, mortgage, lease, provisional registration, etc. established on the previous land or building, and the right of lease satisfying the requirements under Article 3 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act shall be deemed established on the site or building to which the ownership is transferred.

(2) The site or structure to be sold to the owners of lands, etc. from among the sites or structures acquired under paragraph (1), shall be regarded as the substituted land under Article 40 of the Urban Development Act, and the reserved land under Article 48 (3) and the site or structure to be sold to the general public, shall be regarded as the reserved land or the land secured for development outlay under Article 34 of the Urban Development Act.

Urban Development Act

Article 34 (Land Secured for Development outlay)

(1) Any implementer may designate a certain land as a reserved land without designating it as a substitute land for expenses incurred in an urban development project or for the purposes prescribed by rules, articles of incorporation, implementation rules, or implementation plans, and may set some of them as a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and appropriate

Article 40 (Land Substitution Disposition)

Article 42 (Effect of Land-Substitution Disposition)

(1) Any replotting determined in a replotting plan shall be deemed the previous land from the date following the date when a replotting disposition is publicly announced, and any right to the previous land which has not been determined in a replotting plan shall be extinguished at the time when such replotting disposition is publicly announced

(5) An implementer of a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay under Article 34 and a person in reserved land shall acquire ownership on the date following the date when a replotting disposition is publicly announced by the person stipulated in a replotting plan: Provided, That a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development recompense already disposed of pursuant to Article 36 (4) shall acquire ownership at the

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence 4 (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the instant land, the registration of transfer of shares made on March 28, 2014 by Defendant ○○○○ on the share of 323/609 out of the instant land is null and void for the following reasons. Since the registration of transfer of shares or the registration of establishment of a new mortgage between the Defendants and the designated parties was null and void, the Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant land, requested the Defendants and the designated parties to express their consent to the cancellation or cancellation.

1) The transfer announcement is an administrative disposition to transfer the ownership of a site, building, etc. created by a rearrangement project to the purchaser of the building site, etc. as an execution act against the management and disposal plan. Since the transfer announcement clearly stated that the land in this case is owned by the Plaintiff in the land substitution confirmation protocol, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land in this case

2) Even if acquiring the ownership of the instant land according to the transfer announcement of the instant case, the instant land falls under the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay or reserved land and is subject to the application of Article 55(1) of the Urban Improvement Act, Article 55(2) of the Urban Development Act, and Article 42(1) of the Urban Development Act. As such, the Plaintiff, who completed the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party partnership, acquired the complete ownership of the instant land without any restriction on the registration

3) Since the management and disposition plan of the non-party partnership stipulated that the registration of the entry of the decision on commencing the auction of this case shall be transferred to other land than the land of this case, the decision on commencing the auction of this case was transferred to other land according to the management and disposition plan

4) Even if Article 55(1) of the Urban Improvement Act applies to the instant land, the transfer under the said provision is merely “the decision to commence the auction,” and there is no legal basis regarding the transfer of subsequent auction procedures, such as the decision to permit the sale. Of the instant three parcels and the instant land, the shares of 323/609, among the instant three parcels and the instant land, are entirely lost its identity as an object to be sold, and thus, the act of paying the purchase price by Defendant ○○○ constitutes a case where the sale price is substantially changed, since the land registration, shape

B. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the land of this case through the public announcement of the transfer of this case

However, according to the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the fact stated in the remarks column of the land of this case among the "written confirmation of land substitution" in the public notice of the transfer of this case is the "written confirmation of land substitution". However, this can only be interpreted as transferring the ownership of the land of this case to the plaintiff after the non-party union acquired the ownership of the land of this case, and it cannot be viewed as having directly acquired the ownership of the land of this case. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the land of this case is subject to the latter part of Article 55(2) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban Areas and the latter part of Article 42(1) of the Urban Development Act as the land secured by the authorities

Article 55(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas does not require the premise that the previous land or a new land or a building substituted for a building has been sold to the association members as a result of the implementation of an urban improvement project, but it shall be deemed that the same applies to the case where the owner of the previous land or a new building substituted for the previous land or a building is the partnership, and the new building, etc. becomes the reserved land or the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay (see Supreme Court Order 2013Ma325, May 6, 2013). Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant land belongs to the non-party partnership and is not subject to Article 5(1) of the Act

3) Whether the decision on commencing the instant auction has been transferred to another land according to the management and disposition plan

However, inasmuch as the ownership of the previous three parcels is transferred to part of the instant land pursuant to the provisions of Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, the management and disposal plan and the transfer announcement under the Act do not in itself cause the acquisition of rights and the change in the scope of the land or constructed facilities which are objectively determined to correspond to the previous land after the maintenance and improvement project, and the legal effect of the acquisition and the change in the ownership due to the transfer announcement is directly made pursuant to the provisions of the Act. As seen earlier, inasmuch as the ownership of the previous three parcels is transferred to some shares of the instant land pursuant to the provisions of Article 54 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions, the right based on the compulsory commencement order and the registration of the seizure, etc. of the instant three parcels, which were existing in the instant three parcels, shall be deemed to have been transferred to a partial share of the instant land, etc. under the provisions of Article 55(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions. Therefore, there is no effect in the Plaintiff’s assertion.

4) Whether the auction procedure after the decision on commencing the auction of this case was null and void

In light of the nature, certainty, and stability of the procedure of sale, as long as there is a defect in the sale procedure, so long as the defect does not reach the level that the procedure of compulsory auction becomes null and void due to the serious defect, if the decision of permission for sale becomes final and conclusive and the purchaser pays the price, the effect of buyer’s acquisition of ownership cannot be asserted by asserting the invalidation of the permission for sale outside the procedure. As seen earlier, the decision of commencement of sale of this case, which was transferred to the ownership of the previous three lots of land pursuant to Articles 54 and 55(1) of the Urban Improvement Act and entered in the previous three lots of land, has been transferred to the partial share of the land of this case. Thus, even if the "land substitution" pursuant to the former part of Article 5(2) of the Urban Improvement Act and Article 40 of the Urban Development Act is not a "land substitution", the identity between the previous land and the land of this case is recognized. Furthermore, as long as the registration of commencement of auction has been effective, it cannot be seen that the subsequent procedure becomes invalid after the plaintiff's allegation in the auction procedure of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)

1) It should be based on the former Act which was in force at the time of the public announcement of the transfer of the instant case. However, there is no essential difference between the former Act and the current Act concerning the key part (only there is a change in the location of the provisions of the Urban Development Act), and the parties are also disputing the standards of the current Act. Therefore, the provisions of the current Act are indicated.