1. The defendant shall receive KRW 493,984,90 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, shall be stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Summary and key issue of the instant case

A. Under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”), the Plaintiff, a project implementer under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Improvement Act”), exercised a right to demand sale under Article 39 of the Urban Improvement Act against the Defendant, who is the owner of each real estate (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate for convenience”), located in the Plaintiff’s rearrangement project zone, to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on sale and purchase as a result of simultaneous performance

B. As to the Plaintiff’s claim as to the instant real estate as the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff’s primary claim as to the initial application for parcelling-out (from May 30, 2013 to August 11, 2013) or the secondary application period for parcelling-out (from April 29, 2014 to May 16, 2014), which is the day following the end of the first application period for parcelling-out (the primary claim) or the second application period for parcelling-out (the date of May 16, 2014) as to the instant real estate, as to the amount of the legitimate purchase price of the instant real estate, the Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s primary claim as to the instant real estate as to the date of appraisal (the date on which the formation of a sales contract is deemed as the date of the establishment of the sales contract) as well as the Plaintiff’s primary claim as to the amount of the purchase price of the instant real estate, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the objective market price of the instant real estate.

2. The judgment of this Court

(a) The description of Gap 10 and the period for the second application for parcelling-out shall be applied for parcelling-out within the first application period, since the period for the first application for parcelling-out has not been more than four months or elapsed after the expiration of the deadline for the first application for parcelling-out, and the defendant, etc. is not only extended