The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

If a project implementer of a housing reconstruction project under the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 11293, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) exercises a right to demand sale to a person who owns only land pursuant to Article 39 subparag. 2 of the Urban Improvement Act, the sale and purchase contract for the land is established at the same time when the intent to exercise the right to demand sale reaches the market price. The market price is the objective transaction price at the time of exercising the right to demand sale, which is the price assessed on the premise that the project is not implemented, rather than the transaction price based on the premise that the project is implemented, i.e. the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 21556, 21563 Decided March 26, 2009). The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the market price of each land of this case should be assessed based on the price reduced by 1/3 by 1/3 of the comparison standard value of each land of this case, since each land of this case is de facto private roads, the market price of each land of this case should be assessed based on the price reduction by 1/3 of the comparison standard value of each land of this case, among each land listed in the list of real estate listed in the attached Table of the court below as stated in the judgment below (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to market price calculation in exercising the right

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.