소유권이전등기등
The defendant shall receive KRW 1,100,000,000 from the plaintiff at the same time, and each real estate listed in the attached Table shall be paid to the plaintiff.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 6 (including branch numbers), the plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established July 24, 2003 under the "Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents" (hereinafter the "Urban Improvement Act"), and the defendant was a member of the plaintiff, who owned and occupied each real estate in the separate sheet located within the above improvement zone (hereinafter the "each real estate in this case"), and the plaintiff was approved for the implementation of the project by the head of Seocho-gu on September 5, 2013 after obtaining the approval for the implementation of the project from the head of Seocho-gu and received the application for parcelling-out from the members on August 11, 2014 to September 23, 2014, but the defendant did not apply for parcelling-out during the above period, and the defendant did not exercise his right to claim the sale of each of the real estate in this case, as well as a copy of the complaint of 2015.
Judgment
According to the above facts, the defendant is presumed to have concluded a sales contract for each real estate of this case on September 24, 2014, which is the date following the expiration date of the application period for parcelling-out, following the plaintiff's exercise of the right to demand sale by applying Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act mutatis mutandis to the defendant who became a person subject to cash settlement as a result of failing to apply for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out within the period of application for parcelling-out and became a person subject to cash settlement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da73215, Dec. 23, 2010). In addition, the plaintiff as an executor of the rearrangement project, who did not apply for parcelling-out under Article 47 of the Urban Improvement Act,