1. The Defendant received KRW 52,000,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time, and simultaneously received from the Plaintiff:

(a)each entry in the separate sheet;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a housing reconstruction and improvement project association established in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act on the Improvement of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) to implement a housing reconstruction project of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D ground A apartment, and obtained authorization for the establishment from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 11, 2010.

B. The Defendant owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the instant reconstruction project zone (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) and is the Plaintiff’s member who has consented to the reconstruction of this case.

C. On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff received an application for parcelling-out from its members from November 14, 2013 to December 13, 2013 after obtaining authorization to implement a reconstruction project from the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received an additional application for parcelling-out from December 14, 2013 to December 23, 2013 by extending the period for application for parcelling-out.

However, the defendant did not apply for parcelling-out until December 23, 2013, which is the expiration date of the above application period for parcelling-out.

E. The market price assessed as of December 24, 2013 on each of the instant real estate is KRW 1,080,000.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including a branch number, if any), the appraiser E's appraisal result, the inquiry result of appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleading, and the purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. The establishment of a sales contract is deemed to be concluded on the date following the completion date of the period for application for parcelling-out determined by a project implementer pursuant to the Urban Improvement Act for parcelling-out under the Act on the Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents who are project implementers and land owners, etc. who have failed to apply for parcelling-out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da73215, Dec. 23, 2010). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant failed to apply for parcelling-out to the Plaintiff within the period for filing applications