A. On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff was established with the “Housing Construction Business” as a target business.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor for approval of the housing construction project plan (hereinafter “project in this case”) that constructs 11 units of privately-owned apartment units on the ground of the area of 49,860 square meters on the Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, and 286 parcel of land (hereinafter “instant project site”).

C. The Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor approved the said housing construction project plan on February 26, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “approval”), and around that time determined a single unit planning zone of 81,705 square meters adjacent to the site of the instant project, including the instant project site, as a district unit planning zone, and publicly notified the approval of the instant case on March 6, 2014, and publicly announced the purport of the district unit planning zone decision and topographical drawings.

Since the Defendant acquired the real estate listed in the table 1 and 2 Nos. 1 and 2 of the annexed Table 1 on July 16, 1988, the Defendant owns it.

(hereinafter referred to as the above real estate in this case). E

Relevant provisions, such as the Housing Act, for approval of a housing construction project plan and a request for sale by a project undertaker, are as shown in attached Form 2

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2, 7, 8, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) On the part of the exercise of the right to demand sale, the Plaintiff’s major assertion (A) is the project undertaker who has obtained approval for the instant project and secured the right to use more than 95% of the instant project site. The ratio of the right to use the instant project site is a base for dispute depending on the fair progress of the approval. (2) The Plaintiff was undergoing negotiations on the sale of the instant real estate for three months since the commencement of the prior negotiation, such as notifying the Defendant of the commencement of the consultation on compensation for the instant real estate.

3 The plaintiff is at the time of the lapse of not less than three months after the commencement of the negotiations.