1. The defendant shall receive KRW 3,402,480,00 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, shall be stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction project partnership under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) which completed the establishment registration on March 16, 2015 with the approval from the head of Seocho-gu Office for the establishment of a housing reconstruction project from March 9, 2015 for the purpose of promoting the housing reconstruction project in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”). The Defendant owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet located within the instant reconstruction project zone (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On June 11, 2015, after obtaining authorization to establish the association, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendant within two months to request whether to participate in the instant reconstruction project (hereinafter “instant peremptory notice”) by content-certified mail, and on the 15th day of the same month, the said peremptory notice reaches the Defendant, but the Defendant did not reply to the said peremptory notice for the lapse of two months.

C. On September 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, and expressed to the Defendant an intention to exercise the right to demand sale prescribed in the Urban Improvement Act, etc. regarding each of the instant real estate by serving the duplicate of the instant complaint, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant on November 9, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each number, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where a project implementer, who did not participate in a housing reconstruction project, exercises the right to demand sale under the Urban Improvement Act, a sales contract is established based on the market price on the land or building of a person who did not participate in a housing reconstruction project at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da21549, 2156, 21563, Mar. 26, 2009). According to the aforementioned basic facts, the Plaintiff’s act on February 8, 2017.