1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is running a housing construction project with a scale of 359 households apartment units (hereinafter “the instant housing construction project”) by making the 440-5 square meters wide and 15,781.2 square meters in the Seogro-Myeon, Seo-si, Nowon-si, Seoul, as a business site (hereinafter “instant project site”).

B. On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the purchase of the instant real estate, which is general property owned by the Defendant, included in the instant project site.

C. The Defendant decided to sell the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pursuant to Article 30 of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act (hereinafter “Public Property Act”) and Article 27(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant entrusted the appraisal of the market price of the instant real estate to the Sam Chang Chang Corporation Appraisal Corporation and the Japanese Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “instant Appraisal Corporation”). The Defendant determined the sales price of KRW 4,295,919,50, an amount calculated by adding the appraisal commission to the arithmetic average of the two appraised values assessed by the said Appraisal Corporation.

On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant real estate from the Defendant for KRW 4,295,919,50 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

E. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 2,618,591,950 (=429,59,000 + KRW 429,59,000 + KRW 2,618,591,950) on May 31, 2016, including the intermediate payment of KRW 2,189,00,00,00, pursuant to the instant sales contract.

F. The provisions of the Public Property Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act related to the instant case are as stated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (including Serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the plaintiff's purport of the whole pleadings as to the whole, for the following reasons. The proper proceeds from the sale of the real estate of this case among the sales contracts of this case are as follows.