1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant constructed two C Apartment-dong 138 households (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and ancillary facilities as public rental housing on the Seo-gu Daejeon District.

B. On June 11, 1999, the Defendant commenced the lease of public rental housing along with obtaining approval for the use of the instant apartment from the Seo-gu Office of Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and leased the instant apartment for five years to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties.

C. On June 11, 2004, the Defendant commenced the conversion procedure for sale in lots after the lapse of five years, which is the mandatory period for the lease of the apartment in this case, and on September 27, 2005, the plan to convert the sale in lots of the apartment in this case was accepted in the Seo-gu Daejeon District Office.

Plaintiff

On October 25, 2005, the designated parties and the Defendant concluded each contract for the sale of the relevant apartment as stated in the separate number and square column of attached Table 2 (hereinafter “each contract for sale in this case”), and the Plaintiff and the designated parties paid all the sales price to the Defendant according to each contract for sale in this case.

E. Details of the relevant statutes are as shown in Appendix 3.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition】 The evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number in case of additional number), the entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The pre-sale conversion price of the apartment of this case asserted by the Plaintiff and the designated parties shall be the arithmetic mean value of the construction cost and the appraised value pursuant to the relevant statutes (hereinafter “the arithmetic average value”). However, the pre-sale conversion price of the apartment of this case may not exceed the “amount obtained by deducting the depreciation costs during the rental period from the housing price calculated at the time of conversion into a sale based on the construction cost and housing site cost of rental housing (hereinafter “the upper price”).

However, in determining the conversion price for the purchase of the apartment of this case, the defendant's arithmetic average value is not exceeding the upper limit price.