1. The duty to pay the sale price pursuant to the sale contract for the sale in lots to the defendant of the plaintiff A for Kimpo-si M in Kimpo-si is 280,085.

1. Basic facts

A. The Korea Land Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant, regardless of whether before or after the merger, was merged with the Defendant established on October 1, 2009; hereinafter “instant project district”) is the implementer of the Ganyang-dong, long-term Dong, and Yangyang-do Housing Site Development Project (hereinafter “instant project”) which is the project district for Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant project district”). After obtaining approval for the alteration of the housing site development plan and the implementation plan on October 29, 2007, it obtained approval from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on May 2009 for the alteration of the development plan and the amendment of the implementation plan (threej).

B. The Defendant, as a part of the relocation measures for the residents who lost their residential base due to the expropriation of their own housing or land as a result of the incorporation of housing into the instant project district, intended to specially sell the unsettled housing site in the project district to be developed by the implementation of the instant project to those selected as a person subject to the relocation measures.

C. As residents of the project district of this case, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “each sales contract of this case”) with the amount indicated as “the total purchase price under the No.S. sales contract” as the sale price for each housing site indicated as the attached Table 1 calculation sheet as residents of the project district of this case, or succeeded to the rights and obligations under the sales contract from the buyer prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case.

During the proceeding of this case, the succeeding intervenor decided to succeed to the rights and obligations relating to the housing site of migrants that the said plaintiff purchased from the defendant with the consent of the defendant.

Accordingly, the succeeding intervenor succeeded to the instant lawsuit on January 5, 2012, and Plaintiff K withdrawn from the instant lawsuit on February 7, 2012.

E. The plaintiffs and the successor intervenor paid to the defendant the amount indicated in the corresponding column of "the final payment date of the sales price" in the attached Table 1 of the calculation sheet to the defendant as the sales price of each of the instant sales contracts.

[Reasons for Recognition]